Pak Priest Sacrifices 3 Daughters

From a reply to you, some moons ago...

---------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much for the “diagnosis”, but while you were busy prescribing:

Steelfish: “…deity-mandated violence…”, “…mandatory rituals…”, “…noble rationale…”, “…psychologically proven…”, etc.

Physician, heal thyself!

Now about 1 Samuel 2-3:

The argument that the clear and distinct order to kill and maim infants of another tribe, is justified because of a “new covenant ” in the “new testament” is ridiculously silly because the Jews don’t subscribe to any “new testament”. If the New Testament ties links of bondage to the Old, then it is the former that suffers the liabilities, and not the latter. For the millennia during which the Old was the sole arbiter, there is no excuse for the violent barbarity. As for Witch Burning, you assume that the period between 1400 AD and 1700 AD, which consumed innocent lives with religious sanction, of estimates going up to 100,000 women, seats itself in the Dark Ages? Do you know to count?

British rule in India was largely through the mode of the Princely States, where religious law was not the purview of the Criminal Code (for example, did the British criminalise Muslim polygamy? I didn't think so, either). When the same came into force in the period licking at the early 20th century, it did not bring any cataclysmic change in Indian society, for it to have affected religious practices as significantly as you falsely portray it to have been. And this, you emphasise for an issue that did not even make for more than a statistical aberration, compared to the tolls from the Witch Burnings. When Macaulay drafted the Code, it was in consultation with the religious leaders of the time, and not in their absence.

About the Gita being part of another body of literature, mnemonic devices have been a commonly utilised aid to facilitate oral transmission of teachings, in the period when writing was yet to be invented.

For you to consider it fictitious, is neither surprising, nor shocking, for it merely throws light on your abject failure to understand what constitutes belief. To elaborate, the Jews consider Christianity to be an illegitimate corruption of their faith. Among Christians themselves, the Protestants hold Catholics to be ritualistic idolaters (the habit passed off as "veneration" or "canonisation" while worshipping dead body parts, vials of dried blood, dead people and statues) and Romanists, probably for good reason:

Feast of Cocullo (Saint Domenico)

Protestants are in turn, labelled “heretics” and ridiculed, and the counter-charge appears in the form of comparisons of the fate and status of Catholic-dominated hell-holes in the Western Hemisphere, almost all of them susceptible to violent dictatorships, compared to free Protestant bastions of progress and civilization, such as the United States. It took, by the way, Protestant Reforms to cleanse Christianity of the evils of the corrupt papal office, which in the past, participated in such crimes as commissioning sinful behaviour through the sale of "indulgences", trading foreign lands and carving empires, and the like.

"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires."

- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814.

"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"

- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821.

Note the unique susceptibility of Catholicism-dominated countries, to dictatorships: France (De Gaulle), Spain (Franco), Italy (Mussolini), Argentina (Pinochet), etcetera, before attacking the views of the two aforementioned Founding Fathers.

It was also interesting, by the way, that you could not really attack the contents of the Gita, and that forced you to resort to attacking its legitimacy as a religious text.

Additionally, you seem to ignore that Bobby Jindal, before he began to adopt the Catholic faith (at the "early" age of what, 20?), was still more or less an upright citizen, holding to his Hindu beliefs. So too, were his parents. What's your explanation for all of the three not turning into vicious savages, Inquisitors or witch-burners as you accuse Hindus of being?

So, besides your circular logic until now, the whole argument would begin to see some progress on your behalf if you could answer, for starters:

1. Why the hereditary priesthood in Judaism is justified (I'm not asking for a rationale, but an explanation).

2. How you would account for the barbaric violence of the Old Testament, for the period that it was held valid, according to you.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2435288/posts?page=54#54

So your prior incarnation was “My Two Copper Coins” ? Do us all a favor- get yourself a real education before posing irrelevant snippets shorn out of text and context, history and interpretation, and forms of ritual and worship. It becomes even more apparent that all this above your head.

Shallow end of the pool?

Your entire “thesis” here basically boils down to the “miracle” of converting a plainly-written commandment to slaughter infants and children, into something more noble.

All through the works of middlemen and charlatans needed for re-interpretation of scripture, no doubt, the very scheme for which the Catholic Church’s instruments had to be ripped from the roots, in North-Western Europe, and the developed New World, as a consequence.

With that line of illogic, you would drown in an empty pool, leave alone a shallow one.

Oh, and how’s the paedophilia crisis playing out? Not enough money to pay for silence, and shuffling, as before, any more?

Eh?

The only favour everyone here deserves, is an honest admission that there is something fatally flawed in 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.

You are making a fool of yourself not by the hour but by the minute. Illiterates do this all the time. When you are trapped by your own thesis suggesting that we don’t need teachers and interpreters to understand the Word of God, and that the word of God of God should be plain to the “illiterate and uneducated” you find yourself hopelessly trapped unable and unwilling to absorb the true and authentic interpretations of Scripture.

When it is showed how absurd your position is that even an appearance on “60 Minutes” by the Son of Man would not end inquiry into interpretations, you then resort to cut-and-paste snippets of ritual exercises without reference to history, context, culture and purpose and with no understanding of distinctions between worship, adoration, and veneration. All this was of course was in an insipid attempt to counter what in this day and age is the annual filthy spectacle of millions of Indians washing up in the toxic and feces-laden waters of the Ganges surrounded by half-naked Hindu swamis and animal carcasses.

Written text to illiterates is always “plainly written” since anything more is hard to grasp. So as a last resort we have some nonsensical exhortation from the Gita thrown into the arena. Never mind the “plainly written” text informs us that Krishna commanded Arjuna to fight and indiscriminately kill his own kith and kin, his own blood for a mere worldly possession.

And finally, the only response to a Hindu prelate massacring his own young daughters in a grisly act of sacrifice to some Hindu deity is your attempt to draw attention to the incidents of priestly pederasty within the Church and the failure of its human agents to address this. Is this the best you could do to justify the barbaric slaughter of these innocent victims?

You are making a fool of yourself not by the hour but by the minute. Illiterates do this all the time. When you are trapped by your own thesis suggesting that we don’t need teachers and interpreters to understand the Word of God, and that the word of God of God should be plain to the “illiterate and uneducated” you find yourself hopelessly trapped unable and unwilling to absorb the true and authentic interpretations of Scripture.

A true god would not need human re-translation of the given commandments. Those are the signature marks of a man-made cult, completely reliant on a trained line of charlatans, for propagation.

When it is showed how absurd your position is that even an appearance on “60 Minutes” by the Son of Man would not end inquiry into interpretations, you then resort to cut-and-paste snippets of ritual exercises without reference to history, context, culture and purpose and with no understanding of distinctions between worship, adoration, and veneration. All this was of course was in an insipid attempt to counter what in this day and age is the annual filthy spectacle of millions of Indians washing up in the toxic and feces-laden waters of the Ganges surrounded by half-naked Hindu swamis and animal carcasses.

Your silly "60-Minutes" non-explanation made no sense, the first time you presented it. In it, you assumed an outcome, and then used that to prove the validity of your "means". You might want to head back to school for a couple of classes on logic theory. That said, "adoration", "veneration", call it what you may, but idolatry is idolatry, whether you choose to kiss dead human body parts, graven images, wrap the face with snakes, or sprinkle water and eat unleavened cookies, as part of religious belief and unenlightened religious ritual.

Written text to illiterates is always “plainly written” since anything more is hard to grasp. So as a last resort we have some nonsensical exhortation from the Gita thrown into the arena. Never mind the “plainly written” text informs us that Krishna commanded Arjuna to fight and indiscriminately kill his own kith and kin, his own blood for a mere worldly possession.

There you go again! Arjuna was not asked to fight indiscriminately. He was to prescribe to the codes of war, which, among other things, mandated the sparing of children, infants and women, in sharp contrast to 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.

And finally, the only response to a Hindu prelate massacring his own young daughters in a grisly act of sacrifice to some Hindu deity is your attempt to draw attention to the incidents of priestly pederasty within the Church and the failure of its human agents to address this. Is this the best you could do to justify the barbaric slaughter of these innocent victims?

There is no such thing as a Hindu "prelate". It simply doesn't exist. You are importing, and deviously implementing the terminology of structured, heirarchical, man-made, organised religion (Catholicism, in your case), onto one that is structurally diametric in nature.

No one justified the barbaric slaughter of innocent children, except you, when you failed to condemn 1 Samuel 15: 2-3, which calls for this very heinous act, and instead, chose to condone it through explanations involving miraculously twisted re-interpretations.

1. “A true god” ?

Sorry, we don’t believe in monkey gods or humans reincarnated as Tasmanian Devils?

2. The words of a “true god” does not need human translation. Either humans can’t translate (the “illiterate and the uneducated”) but then even a “60 Minutes” appearance won’t count only because translations would inevitably follow- I take it by humans.

3. Without intelligent differentiations in worship, ritual, veneration, and adoration, and superstition, how does one conclude with broad sweep that all is idolatry except for the ignoramuses who are unable to make and appreciate the distinctions?

4. Oh so finally, we cannot take the “plain text” of Krishna’s command to have Arjuna commit heinous acts of indiscriminate bloodshed on his own kith and kin as definitive? Did you say we now need to give this an “interpretation”? and going back to your previous post “Who’s to interpret”?

Oh, I forgot we don’t need scholars, teachers, universities, colleges. How about some “interpretation” (I thought you are against this?) on who is a “prelate” a “swami” or a “half-naked fakir”?

Ha ha! But you need a god, who, among other things, instructs you to slaughter babies, kiss pieces of dead flesh, eat cookies, prostrate to weeping statues and paintings, wrap snakes onto the faces, and the like, right? A god that is utterly reliant on a corrupt, paedophilia-laced body of usurping human agents, to re-interpret and modify scripture as whims demand, and as convenience suits.

Again, your “60-Minute” nonsense, as usual, makes no sense, whatsoever. Repeating the same garbage robotically won’t do anything to change that fact.

Without intelligent differentiations in worship, ritual, veneration, and adoration, and superstition, how does one conclude with broad sweep that all is idolatry except for the ignoramuses who are unable to make and appreciate the distinctions?

Really? The following are not examples of idolatry?

I guess the child was born literate and with a ThD, to be able to interpret the spiritual significance of the act.

And:

Holy snakes!

Disgusting "veneration", all of the above.

Oh so finally, we cannot take the “plain text” of Krishna’s command to have Arjuna commit heinous acts of indiscriminate bloodshed on his own kith and kin as definitive? Did you say we now need to give this an “interpretation”? and going back to your previous post “Who’s to interpret”?

Indiscriminate? Says who? Do you know who the target was? What was their crime? Were they really innocen? Did the war involve killing women? Or children? Did it involve adhering strictly to the terms of battle?

Do any of these really need interpretation, when it's all plainly explained in no unambiguous terms, in scripture?

Swamis, half-naked fakirs, paedophile Catholic priests, tyrant popes and self-righteous kings, none of these are needed. Just a knowledge of language, which does not need a fraction of the acrobatics that you employ to convert the explicit, unambiguous order to slaughter children, in 1 Samuel 15: 3, into an act of infinite benevolence.

"I am alike for all! I know not hate,

I know not favour! What is made is Mine!

But them that worship Me with love, I love;

They are in Me, and I in them!"

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: IX, Lines 113-116.

Hide, the holy Krishna saith,

This from him that hath no faith,

Him that worships not, nor seeks

Wisdom’s teaching when she speaks:

Hide it from all men who mock;

But, wherever, ’mid the flock

Of My lovers, one shall teach

This divinest, wisest, speech—

Teaching in the faith to bring

Truth to them, and offering

Of all honour unto Me—

Unto Brahma cometh he!

Nay, and nowhere shall ye find

Any man of all mankind

Doing dearer deed for Me;

Nor shall any dearer be

In My earth. Yea, furthermore,

Whoso reads this converse o’er

Held by Us upon the plain,

Pondering piously and fain,

He hath paid Me sacrifice!

Krishna speaketh in this wise!

Yea, and whoso, full of faith,

Heareth wisely what it saith,

Heareth meekly,—when he dies,

Surely shall his spirit rise

To those regions where the Blest,

Free of flesh, in joyance rest.

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XVIII, Lines 238-265.

--------------------------------------------------------

Do yourself a favor! Get yourself a serious education before wading into deep theological waters and then finding yourself embarrassingly hoisted on your own petard.

How the hell would you known what’s going on the mind of an individual who seeks to genuflect or shows appreciation or veneration for those whom they consider near and dear to them- be it their loved ones or ones they love? Posting rituals of snake worship is alien to authentic Christian worship.

Now you don’t want us to sink to your level by posting pics of filthy Hindu rituals do you?

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2010/03/16/bizarre-health-rituals-india-show-dangerous-side-tradition/

This irrelevant and continuous postings of Gita verses is more appropriate to those “illiterate and uneducated” masses you speak of for whom God must speak in clear terms in a manner and form that may not be open to any interpretation and yet in clear terms this mythical deity called Krishna mandates a re-incarnated Arjuna to produce a blood-bath by massacring his own own-kith and kin and presumably babies as well. No small wonder that outside the shores of the confined mass of people who embrace this faith, it is a religion that has never really been embraced by serious intellects. Indeed brilliant scholars like Gov. Jindal have jettisoned this into the obscure corners of mythology.

Your shallow references to scriptural text (like the one with Samuel) without context and historicity turned out to be hoot when it was pointed out that this was a reference to what occurred four centuries before the utterance was made to produce the “image” of a genocidal creator to justify the murder.

Over and over again you foolishness has been exposed.

Attempting to compare the vast and scholarly dispositions of St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Paschal, and Benedict XVI to Hindu text is like comparing the stars to manure. Why you would even try bring to mind the aphorism that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Do yourself a favor! Get yourself a serious education before wading into deep theological waters and then finding yourself embarrassingly hoisted on your own petard.

The very fact that you keep up with my retorts, post-for-post, proves otherwise. You aren't stupid enough to debate all weekend with whom you think to be an idiot, are you?

How the hell would you known what’s going on the mind of an individual who seeks to genuflect or shows appreciation or veneration for those whom they consider near and dear to them- be it their loved ones or ones they love?

So, the baby in the previous picture, made to kiss that painting, knows what it's doing? Prove it, and this year's Nobel is yours for the taking.

Now you don’t want us to sink to your level by posting pics of filthy Hindu rituals do you?

Yawn.

This one's easy. Any of it, as per the Gita? If not, I'm not interested, and neither should anyone else be.

Rituals of snake worship is alien to authentic Christian worship.

You are the one who was of the view that Catholics do not indulge in such ignorance. The point of those posts, was to prove your hypocrisy, which it did, decisively.

All those pictures in the link you posted, is alien to the message of the Gita as well.

This irrelevant and continuous postings of Gita verses is more appropriate to those “illiterate and uneducated” masses you speak of for whom God must speak in clear terms in a manner and form that may not be open to any interpretation and yet in clear terms this mythical deity called Krishna mandates a re-incarnated Arjuna to produce a blood-bath by massacring his own own-kith and kin and presumably babies as well. No small wonder that outside the shores of the confined mass of people who embrace this faith, it is a religion that has never really been embraced by serious intellects. Indeed brilliant scholars like Gov. Jindal have jettisoned this into the obscure corners of mythology.

This is rich. The war in the Gita was not indiscriminate slaughter, your presumption notwithstanding. It had to honour the codes of war, which, among other things, involved such minutiae as not fighting after sundown. Bobby Jindal clearly values the spiritual message of the Gita, which he indicated on the same article you posted, in spite of you falsely believing the contrary. Read it again, if you wish so.

That said, as someone else on that old thread argued, Jindal's reasoning of the war in the Gita to be contrary to the message of love that it proclaims, is silly, because he hasn't been able to reconcile the permitted slavery, commanded violence, ritual animal and human sacrifice, genital mutilations and mandated child-slaughter in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 15: 2-3 being only one out of many examples). Until he explains it, it remains that his conversion has the hallmarks of both poor reasoning, and ulterior political motives.

Your shallow references to scriptural text (like the one with Samuel) without context and historicity turned out to be hoot when it was pointed out that this was a reference to what occurred four centuries before the utterance was made to produce the “image” of a genocidal creator to justify the murder.

And yet, in spite of over a hundred comments back and forth, you haven't provided a single sentence explaining the justification for the ritual slaughter in 1 Samuel 15: 2-3. A single one. An illustration of how you justify the mandated violence in your mind.

Alas, you are inclined to recycling bull-spittle instead, as almost all of your comments before this, and predictably after this, seems to, and will, indicate.

Or are you claiming that the slaughter never occurred, now?

Over and over again you foolishness has been exposed.

Or so, you'd like to believe, and yet, take the trouble to match comment-for-comment. You are a text-book case, if so.

Attempting to compare the vast and scholarly dispositions of St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Paschal, and Benedict XVI to Hindu text is like comparing the stars to manure. Why you would even try bring to mind the aphorism that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Yet, no explanation for 1 Samuel 15: 2-3. What a pity! All that scholarly toil for naught!

Sometimes even foolish minds need to be addressed. It is an impulse of all who have a scholarly tradition. Hence my ripostes to you, formerly known as “My Two Copper Coins”

Very much like Krishna in the Gita who disguises himself as a charioteer, you disguise your musings based on text taken out of historical context and cultural authenticity.

You write: “And yet, in spite of over a hundred comments back and forth, you haven’t provided a single sentence explaining the justification for the ritual slaughter in 1 Samuel 15: 2-3. A single one. An illustration of how you justify the mandated violence in your mind.”

How many times have you to be reminded that this is passage was a trumped up excuse to wage war on the Amalekites for events that occurred four centuries before. No one justifies this. To put it bluntly, the literal meaning you provide here is undercut by historicity and what scholars call the cultural manipulation of text to justify aggressive war. To scholars, a passage torn or shorn out of context is worthless for the text that describes it. This is what “internet-learning” does to you.

Indeed, this is what you are precisely doing by attempting to justify as mandates to “honor the codes of war” of Krishna’s command to Arjuna to murder on the battlefield. You are providing a backdrop text to explain a writ for murder.

At least you now acknowledge that the mythical and disguised deity has set forth “codes of war” to be observed at all costs even if this includes the deliberate and calculated slaughter of one’s own kith and kin. Where does one find this deity-mandated codes of war? Just inquiring or should we now examine parallels in the Quran?

This irrelevant and continuous postings of Gita verses is more appropriate to those “illiterate and uneducated” masses you speak of for whom God must speak in clear terms in a manner and form that may not be open to any interpretation and yet in clear terms this mythical deity called Krishna mandates a re-incarnated Arjuna to produce a blood-bath by massacring his own own-kith and kin and presumably babies as well. No small wonder that outside the shores of the confined mass of people who embrace this faith, it is a religion that has never really been embraced by serious intellects. Indeed brilliant scholars like Gov. Jindal have jettisoned this into the obscure corners of mythology.

I’m not going to wade in other than this one point. Not going to because it’s clear that you can’t listen to reason due to your deeply rooted hatred of Hinduism which is based on ignorance of what Hinduism is. I hope that when I start my Sat Dharma Caucus you take a few mintues to read some of the aritcles.

That said, I have read three translations of the Mahabharat and recently purchased the only complete English translation. The warfare practice in the Vedic times was strictly according to Kshatryia codes, which meant - all participants were willing fighters, they fought in designated warfields far away from non-combantants such as women, children, the elderly, and so on. They started war at dawn and ended at sunset. If a fighter turned his back and ran the rules are that no one would shoot him in the back, as this was considered a coward’s act.

There were many such rules, and they were seldom broken.

Additionally, the oppposite party that Arjuna and his brothers fought were evil usurpers - liars, thieves, cheaters and violators of the rule of law. They had stolen Arjuna and his brothers’ kingdom that rightfull belonged to them. They had tried to kill the Pandavas numerous times by treachery and deceit. So Arjuna and his brothers were on the side of Right, and the opposite party were altogether wrong.

And to set the record straight, many Westerners of great intellect have read the Bhagavad Gita and other Vedic shastras and gained great insight and wisdom. You know nothing about the Vedas, you are only digging a hole deeper and deeper. If all I read about the Bible were Muslim articles about it, would I not be ill-informed? Well, your knowledge of Hinduism is exactly like Muslims’ knowledge of Christianity.

Presumptions aside, and your “scholarly tradition” comprising of supporting dubious positions with scatalogical publications from Scribd.com, are you saying that you believe that the Amalekites and their children were not slaughtered / exterminated, as the Old Testament records?

Please reply, specifically.

The rest of your post isn’t even worthy of a retort - It’s the same recycled presumptuous bull-spittle that you’ve been spewing here from the time you started to reply.

As usual at some point scholars reach a dead-end in attempting to engage the uneducated in the deep waters of theological debate. We have reached that point.

Before you seek to further engage in rational argument, we must advise, more in charity than anger, that in the future you get yourself a solid ivy league education in whatever field you purport to write or converse in, lest you find yourself drowning in the waters of your own logic.

Otherwise, you are reduced to using such terms as “dubious,” “scatalogical,” “bull-spittle” to mask a serious inadequacy of a coherent thought-process.

As usual at some point scholars reach a dead-end in attempting to engage the uneducated in the deep waters of theological debate. We have reached that point.

Ha Ha! Have you run out of bullshit? Unable to answer a simple, straightforward question? All your 100+ comments were mere deviations to avoid answering just this. Even if you cannot swallow your pride to provide an answer to that, publicly, at least I hope you will ask yourself and attempt to answer the same, in private. For the good of reason.

Before you seek to further engage in rational argument, we must advise, more in charity than anger, that in the future you get yourself a solid ivy league education in whatever field you purport to write or converse in, lest you find yourself drowning in the waters of your own logic.

Ah, yes. Ivy-League backwater-subjects "education". Perhaps that is all I need, to be able to post arguments based on scatalogical publications from Scribd.com, as you frequently indulge yourself in.

Otherwise, you are reduced to using such terms as “dubious,” “scatalogical,” “bull-spittle” to mask a serious inadequacy of a coherent thought-process.

Don't fret, Steelfish, I just borrowed them from your lexicon!

May this post be a reminder to all, how vain your attempts to deviate from the topic at hand, were.

One other point I’d like to make is this:

I consider all monotheists (leaving aside Muslims) fellow believers in God, and if they are sincere and stand up for their religious principles and morality, then I am happy to stand with them against the onslaught of atheism, secularism, hedonism and marxism.

In fact, I feel a great kinship with Catholics and Orthodox Christians because of their strong moral standards and they have more of a devotional and personal practice than Protestants, although I certainly count traditional Protestants among my friends as well.

The danger we face today is from godlessness, not from those who believe in God but worship in a different way. Maybe after the atheists, marxists, hedonists and secularists are defeated, we can peaceably sit down and discuss theological differences. But IMO our fighting spirit is better used against those who hate all religious believers (again, leaving Islam out of the picture, it’s a whole ‘nother story...).

For instance, I consider the Mormon beliefs a bunch of made up hooey, but still, I’d rather have a sincere Mormon at my side than a homosexual activist atheist. I think you get my point! I really don’t want to criticize what other people believe or practice even if I think it’s incorrect, or not the best or most enlightened way to worship God. What I want to see is religious believers putting aside a bit of their sectarian hatred, and instead, fighting against atheism and mechanistic materialism, which is busily destroying the world.

Also, shallow and false religious people are more of a danger than sincere ones, and every religion in the world has more than enough of those. I’d rather encourage a shallow and superficial Christian to become a sincere CHristian, than have him convert and become a shallow and insincere Hindu.

Another wise commentary from you.

Anyone who has ever lived where witchcraft and sorcery is prevalent knows the truth of this.

One specific incident does not a whole doctrine or religion make. If the best someone can do to attack a religion is rely on only one verse, it goes to show how weak their argument is.

>>The God of the Old Testament is way too human.

And in that, mirrors the vanity, anger, venality and unstable temperaments of the Gods and Goddesses of Mount Olympus.

Clash of the Titans was on TCM recently!

Suppose Mohammad borrowed Pegasus from Perseus when he astral projected himself to Jerusalem.

The God of the Old Testament is way too human.

Hardly. Your view of Him is too narrow. He is not a petty tyrant like the gods of this world, but if that's how you choose to perceive Him, that's how you will see Him.

It’s similar to the way that people thank God for a medical cure and forget to thank the doctors who cured him. Who cured you? God or the doctors?

Doctors don't *cure* anyone. They treat them. And God has healed plenty of people, myself included, and I've seen other cases. So your blanket statement is wrong.