Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Khatru on June 02, 2016, 10:25:25 PM
-
After all, according to Michelle Gregg, God was protecting her child from the gorilla.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/michelle-gregg-cincinnati-zoo-mother-mom-name-gorilla-harambe-facebook-photos-son-petition/
This callous and to be honest, deranged sense of gratitude is wholly lacking in any empathy whatsoever.
Her imaginary friend had nothing to do with saving her baby while the zookeepers did.
Once more we see how a believer ignores human effort while giving credit to an invisible sky pixie.
-
After all, according to Michelle Gregg, God was protecting her child from the gorilla.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/michelle-gregg-cincinnati-zoo-mother-mom-name-gorilla-harambe-facebook-photos-son-petition/
This callous and to be honest, deranged sense of gratitude is wholly lacking in any empathy whatsoever.
Her imaginary friend had nothing to do with saving her baby while the zookeepers did.
Once more we see how a believer ignores human effort while giving credit to an invisible sky pixie.
They don't just ignore 'human effort', they ignore anything and everything that cannot be attributed to their God!
Particularly in the U S, it is rapidly getting to the point where some sects of Christianity are becoming dangerously close to classification as mental instability if not actual mental illness.
I'm glad that I live in the U K and all I have to put up with are the very outer fringes of that sort of belief.
-
They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe but they did profusely thank the zoo staff for intervening so quickly. I don't think they are making a big deal out of thanking God, they just said it once and presumably that is in line with their beliefs. It must have been a terrifying experience for their son and for them.
There's been a backlash against them because the silver back gorilla was shot so they wanted to make one final statement.
Years ago a boy fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Gerald Durrell Conservation Zoo in Jersey but he was treated tenderly by a female gorilla until he was pulled out, unhurt. It was quite touching. However an alpha male is a different kettle of fish if his territory is invaded. The keepers had no choice but to kill the gorilla, he was dragging the little boy around, might have maimed and killed him.
I note police are considering investigating the parents with regard to the incident - why? Do they seriously think the parents pushed the boy? Horrible thought, not very likely but I presume the zoo has cctv.
-
They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe but they did profusely thank the zoo staff for intervening so quickly. I don't think they are making a big deal out of thanking God, they just said it once
They have said it more than once if you look at the tweets and seem pretty convinced that somehow God saved their son.
... and presumably that is in line with their beliefs.
Well of course - that's the point isn't it? But if someone believes God can influence such events or intervene do they wonder why God let it happen in the first place? What makes them think God saved their son but not the thousands of other children who would have died around the world that same day? Surely the point is that it demonstrates the effect of their beliefs on their thinking isn't it?
-
I bet those negligent parents wouldn't have blamed god if their son had died. His rescue was totally down to the response of the zoo staff absolutely nothing to do with the sky fairy!
-
Floo, they only said, ''Thank the Lord'' or something like that, they weren't making a big deal out it! It seems we are making more of a deal, most people wouldn't even have noticed.
The parents may well have been distracted, turning their backs for a moment, but it happens, doesn't mean they are always negligent. We really should not be judgemental, let's wait and see what the facts are.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe
Long and dismal experience of theists and the things they come out with suggests they would have done exactly and precisely the same if their offspring had been turned into pulled pork.
-
They 'thanked the Lord' that their son was safe but they did profusely thank the zoo staff for intervening so quickly. I don't think they are making a big deal out of thanking God, they just said it once and presumably that is in line with their beliefs. It must have been a terrifying experience for their son and for them.
There's been a backlash against them because the silver back gorilla was shot so they wanted to make one final statement.
Years ago a boy fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Gerald Durrell Conservation Zoo in Jersey but he was treated tenderly by a female gorilla until he was pulled out, unhurt. It was quite touching. However an alpha male is a different kettle of fish if his territory is invaded. The keepers had no choice but to kill the gorilla, he was dragging the little boy around, might have maimed and killed him.
I note police are considering investigating the parents with regard to the incident - why? Do they seriously think the parents pushed the boy? Horrible thought, not very likely but I presume the zoo has cctv.
No - they are investigating the parents for possible negligence, thus allowing the boy to fall into the enclosure. And quite rightly to in my opinion. The boy getting into the gorilla enclosure was not a matter of a few seconds inattention.
-
No - they are investigating the parents for possible negligence, thus allowing the boy to fall into the enclosure. And quite rightly to in my opinion. The boy getting into the gorilla enclosure was not a matter of a few seconds inattention.
I agree. However, it seems incredible that it was actually possible for a member of the public to enter the enclosure, the zoo should have these areas better secured, imo.
-
Floo, they only said, ''Thank the Lord'' or something like that, they weren't making a big deal out it! It seems we are making more of a deal, most people wouldn't even have noticed.
As I pointed out they said more than that. On Facebook she wrote 'God protected our child until the authorities were able to get him' & thanked God for 'being the awesome God that he is'. In a statement the parents said 'We continue to praise God for His grace and mercy' so it wasn't just a 'Thank God' comment said in passing.
-
Why indeed, when the emergency number is 999? ;)
-
Why indeed, when the emergency number is 999? ;)
Wrong, Steve!! ;D
-
After all, according to Michelle Gregg, God was protecting her child from the gorilla.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/michelle-gregg-cincinnati-zoo-mother-mom-name-gorilla-harambe-facebook-photos-son-petition/
This callous and to be honest, deranged sense of gratitude is wholly lacking in any empathy whatsoever.
Her imaginary friend had nothing to do with saving her baby while the zookeepers did.
Once more we see how a believer ignores human effort while giving credit to an invisible sky pixie.
And you have proof positive that the keeper who shot the gorilla wasn't being guided and perhaps even calmed by God? Have they told you that this wasn't the case? Perhaps the shooter and their boss are believers who felt that this was the best thing to do.
To make such a daft comment, Khat, when I doubt whether you know any of the actors involved in the drama, is little short of crass.
-
Why indeed, when the emergency number is 999? ;)
Good luck with 999 in Cincinnati
-
They have said it more than once if you look at the tweets and seem pretty convinced that somehow God saved their son.
And, of course, you have lots of proof to show that the people involved didn't believe that they weren't being guided by God?
Well of course - that's the point isn't it? But if someone believes God can influence such events or intervene do they wonder why God let it happen in the first place? What makes them think God saved their son but not the thousands of other children who would have died around the world that same day? Surely the point is that it demonstrates the effect of their beliefs on their thinking isn't it?
It would be interesting to know how many children's lives were saved that day, either by the quick thinking of passers-by, by the work of youth workers, medics, social workers, law enforcers, teachers, scientists, ... and, of course, zoo-staff. To dismiss the role that God plays in everyday life as glibly as some here do is to ignore the realities of life.
-
And you have proof positive that the keeper who shot the gorilla wasn't being guided and perhaps even calmed by God? Have they told you that this wasn't the case? Perhaps the shooter and their boss are believers who felt that this was the best thing to do.
To make such a daft comment, Khat, when I doubt whether you know any of the actors involved in the drama, is little short of crass.
Can God only act through humans? If so, how do you know it is anything other than humans acting alone? If not, then why didn't God just save the child directly without the need for human intervention?
-
And, of course, you have lots of proof to show that the people involved didn't believe that they weren't being guided by God?
Of course they believed that - I didn't say otherwise.
It would be interesting to know how many children's lives were saved that day, either by the quick thinking of passers-by, by the work of youth workers, medics, social workers, law enforcers, teachers, scientists, ... and, of course, zoo-staff.
By human actions, yes.
To dismiss the role that God plays in everyday life as glibly as some here do is to ignore the realities of life.
Really? When there is no evidence other than belief that God is involved at all.
-
Can God only act through humans? If so, how do you know it is anything other than humans acting alone? If not, then why didn't God just save the child directly without the need for human intervention?
He often does act through people - after all, a physical presence is often required, but he can work independently of humans.
We heard an amusing story of a family in Nepal whose 'allottment' (as it were) was in the middle of the area that the villagers used for their own crops. When the family became Christians, the other villagers decided to block the network of irrigation channels that ran through the area where they touched the family's plot. A week or two later, as the level of the river that fed the channels dropped and the channels dried up, the family's plot was the only one that stayed damp. This wasn't a normal yearly event; the villagers had no recollection of it happening in their life times. Somehow water was making its way underground to it, but by-passing all the other plots. They had to unblock the channels in order for the water that was reaching the one plot to reach the others. OK, it might have been coincidental, but the timing suggests that there was something more than that - what some call a God-incident.
-
Of course they believed that - I didn't say otherwise.
The point I'm making is that we don't know what anyone other than the parents believed. For all we know, all the other people at the zoo that day - public and employees - were believers (or none of them). For Khat to make his sweeping OP points to the pointlessness of the OP.
By human actions, yes.
Which may, or may not, have been prompted by a faith in God.
Really? When there is no evidence other than belief that God is involved at all.
When there is no naturalistic evidence, I agree, but then how often do events occur for which there are no naturalistic explanations?
-
He often does act through people - after all, a physical presence is often required,
Why - can't God just make it happen, like parting the Red Sea for example. And you didn't ask the question 'how do you know it is anything other than humans acting alone?'
as to but he can work independently of humans.
So why need humans at all? Why not save the child without the need for human involvement and the death of the Gorilla?
-
The point I'm making is that we don't know what anyone other than the parents believed. For all we know, all the other people at the zoo that day - public and employees - were believers (or none of them). For Khat to make his sweeping OP points to the pointlessness of the OP.
This was a response to my post - not Khat's.
Which may, or may not, have been prompted by a faith in God.
I don't think anyone disputes that people do things because of their faith sometimes. But that isn't the same as saying God intervened or saved someone is it?
When there is no naturalistic evidence, I agree, but then how often do events occur for which there are no naturalistic explanations?
I don't know of any where there is no possible naturalistic explanation.
[/quote]
-
When there is no naturalistic evidence, I agree, but then how often do events occur for which there are no naturalistic explanations?
Do you have an example of a event with no naturalistic explanation?
-
This was a response to my post - not Khat's.
Yet it came from aresponse to the OP and the thread as a whole.
I don't think anyone disputes that people do things because of their faith sometimes. But that isn't the same as saying God intervened or saved someone is it?
Whilst I don't believe that God is a creation of the human mind, if a believer does something in the name of God, that suggests God has. After all, we get God (and gods) being at least in part blamed when people commit atrocities.
I don't know of any where there is no possible naturalistic explanation.
Well, I've referred to the issue of right and wrong.
-
Well, I've referred to the issue of right and wrong.
You referred to an 'event': I suppose reaching an opinion regarding something being right or wrong would be an event of thinking, but since this involves neural activity in brains then this would be natural.
-
You referred to an 'event': I suppose reaching an opinion regarding something being right or wrong would be an event of thinking, but since this involves neural activity in brains then this would be natural.
Natural and naturalistic are different words with different meanings, Gordon.
-
Whilst I don't believe that God is a creation of the human mind, if a believer does something in the name of God, that suggests God has.
No it doesn't at all.
After all, we get God (and gods) being at least in part blamed when people commit atrocities.
Where?
Well, I've referred to the issue of right and wrong.
Which can be explained by neural activity, social norms, empathy and so on. Basically a product of brain activity - so a naturalistic explanation.
-
Natural and naturalistic are different words with different meanings, Gordon.
If I were to change the last word of my post to naturalistic it would make no substantive difference to the point I was making. In reply to Maeght's comment I don't know of any where there is no possible naturalistic explanation
you replied Well, I've referred to the issue of right and wrong
My point was that right and wrong are human judgments made via thinking, which is done in brains, naturally. Therefore, my query is in what way is right and wrong non-naturalistic, which seems to be what you are suggesting?
-
He often does act through people
Why doesn't he act through rapists to make them not commit rape?
-
Why doesn't he act through rapists to make them not commit rape?
Because, on top of everything else he is, he is also a misogynist?
-
Because, on top of everything else he is, he is also a misogynist?
So, you suggest that someone who, according to the Creation story, makes women equal with men - in fact states that there is no male or female in his eyes, is misogynist? You suggest that the epistle writer, often referred to as a misogynist, who gives advice to both men and women - yet is harder on men when expressing his strong views on how men should treat women than he is the other way round and has even been hailed as the first feminist writer by some modern feminists, is a misogynist?
Something tells me that you need to study the dictionary to discover exactly what a misogynist is.
-
After all, according to Michelle Gregg, God was protecting her child from the gorilla.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/michelle-gregg-cincinnati-zoo-mother-mom-name-gorilla-harambe-facebook-photos-son-petition/
This callous and to be honest, deranged sense of gratitude is wholly lacking in any empathy whatsoever.
Her imaginary friend had nothing to do with saving her baby while the zookeepers did.
Once more we see how a believer ignores human effort while giving credit to an invisible sky pixie.
Are you making too bigger deal of this?
Who made you the judge of what did and did not happen?
Seems you are just annoyed because in reality you cannot prove God did not keep that child safe whilst the zoo keepers got the gun and made the decision to shoot the animal.
Why does it matter to you? It won't make you right or even help your cause.
Unless you can prove God took not part then I think you have to be HONEST and say you don't know if God helped to protect the child. Given that God has said:-
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?
7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
I think the course of action shows that both God and man agree that humans more valuable to God and each other than animals. What only God knows is the truth about whether the animal would eventually have harmed the child fatally.
Surely the important thing is that the child came safely through this and that everyone is free to thank God and the Zoo keepers.
-
So, you suggest that someone who, according to the Creation story, makes women equal with men - in fact states that there is no male or female in his eyes, is misogynist? You suggest that the epistle writer, often referred to as a misogynist, who gives advice to both men and women - yet is harder on men when expressing his strong views on how men should treat women than he is the other way round and has even been hailed as the first feminist writer by some modern feminists, is a misogynist?
Something tells me that you need to study the dictionary to discover exactly what a misogynist is.
No, Hope, and there is no hope that you will ever take off the blinkers of your childhood brainwshing and see the bits that are misgynistic - "Let the woman keep silent in church" for one! How long has it taken to get women priests and, even more so, women bishops? The Curse of Eve?
Quote from above (edited for accuracy) - Something tells me that you need to study the (edit) Bible (edit) to discover exactly what a misogynist (edit) your God (edit) is!
-
Who made you the judge of what did and did not happen?
Who are you to deny us the right to judge the situation and its results according to out own beliefs - religioius or otherwise?
-
Who are you to deny us the right to judge the situation and its results according to out own beliefs - religioius or otherwise?
I think the problem is that some of 'you' seem to judge issues like this without making an attempt to understand what the issue really is, Owly.
-
I think the problem is that some of 'you' seem to judge issues like this without making an attempt to understand what the issue really is, Owly.
The issue is that the parents neglected their child long enough for him to get into the gorilla enclosure and then prayed for his safety instead of yelling for help!
You, Hope, need to start to live in the real world instead of the fictional world in which God, your God, will (maybe) fix anything if you ask him nicely and thereby absolve you of any responsibility for your own failures or the results of those failures.
-
Who are you to deny us the right to judge the situation and its results according to out own beliefs - religioius or otherwise?
Is khatru inclusive of all people posting? NO! Therefore my reply to Khatru in no way denies you or anyone else the right to judge anything. However you cannot judge a situation you did not witness.
-
The issue is that the parents neglected their child long enough for him to get into the gorilla enclosure and then prayed for his safety instead of yelling for help!
Parents neglected??????
So every parent whose child has a mishap and ends in ER was the victim of neglect by the parents?
Why are the Zoo not responsible for not ensuring there was no way a child so small could get into of fall into the enclosure?
It is clear you are just against the parents and will accuse them of anything instead of the truth that NO child should have been able to fall into such an enclosure that the rails should have been higher than a person.
You, Hope, need to start to live in the real world instead of the fictional world in which God, your God, will (maybe) fix anything if you ask him nicely and thereby absolve you of any responsibility for your own failures or the results of those failures.
By the above you mean you want Hope to become a person who thinks as you do in your world? God exists but does he tell you what to do? Does he make you say or do anything you don't want to say or do? You speak about God and yet you admit you have full control and freedom to do and say what you want, but want God to remove the freedom and control when it comes to you doing anything bad to another? Just how will that work?
Think it through and give some intelligent and logical suggestions.
-
Is khatru inclusive of all people posting? NO! Therefore my reply to Khatru in no way denies you or anyone else the right to judge anything. However you cannot judge a situation you did not witness.
So you, Sassy, can judge the truth of neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection!
-
So, you suggest that someone who, according to the Creation story, makes women equal with men - in fact states that there is no male or female in his eyes, is misogynist?
Why doesn't he stop rapists then?
-
So you, Sassy, can judge the truth of neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection!
HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER KHATRU IS SPEAKING FOR ALL.
As for the crucifixion and the resurrection it is a truth already in existence and the choice no one else can make for another when it comes to believing it.
Did I really need to spell that out for you?
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
-
HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER KHATRU IS SPEAKING FOR ALL.
As for the crucifixion and the resurrection it is a truth already in existence and the choice no one else can make for another when it comes to believing it.
Did I really need to spell that out for you?
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Whilst it is conceivable Jesus was crucified as he had made so many enemies, the resurrection story has no credibility to it whatsoever.
-
Whilst it is conceivable Jesus was crucified as he had made so many enemies, the resurrection story has no credibility to it whatsoever.
From a purely naturalistic pov, I'd agree, Floo. However, as I've pointed out several times before, I (and others on this board) don't believe that life is exclusively naturalistic.
-
Why doesn't he act through rapists to make them not commit rape?
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, jeremy - as usual. We are all prone to failings - some on a low-level, such as getting unjustly angry but not violent; others on a higher-level, such as getting unjustly angry and violent; and still others on a far higher-level such as getting unjustly angry and murdering someone(s). All those failings (which of course also includes your example of rape) were not in the original plan for humanity, but are now there. We generally pray for people and situations when things have gone wrong, so that we are asking God to provide help in such a situation, be that in the form of another human who is willing to listen to or advise someone, to treat them or to encourage them. Whist your question is a valid questiuon, it can be very difficult to know just how many people have been encouraged and/or taught how to avoid letting the more destructive tendencies that humans can exhibit take them over. For instance, we don't know just how many people who have a tendency to rape have managed to control those urges as a result of their faith in Christ or a discussion or listening session they've had with someone sent by God for that purpose.
-
From a purely naturalistic pov, I'd agree, Floo. However, as I've pointed out several times before, I (and others on this board) don't believe that life is exclusively naturalistic.
Indeed you have, ad nauseum: but you seem unable to justify your claim by presenting anything about 'life' that is mutually exclusive from the naturalistic.
-
Years ago a boy fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Gerald Durrell Conservation Zoo in Jersey but he was treated tenderly by a female gorilla until he was pulled out, unhurt. It was quite touching. However an alpha male is a different kettle of fish if his territory is invaded. The keepers had no choice but to kill the gorilla, he was dragging the little boy around, might have maimed and killed him.
No. You have got this wrong so I'll just put the record straight.
It was a male gorilla named Jambo. He was the alpha male in the enclosure and he stood guard between the boy and the oither gorillas.
-
Think it through and give some intelligent and logical suggestions.
Since I have rarely, if ever, seen you make any comment that is either intelligent or logical, seeing as most of your posts come from The Christian Book of Bollocks and Bullshit you should look at the beam in your own eye before looking at the mote in mine!
-
HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER KHATRU IS SPEAKING FOR ALL.
As for the crucifixion and the resurrection it is a truth already in existence and the choice no one else can make for another when it comes to believing it.
Did I really need to spell that out for you?
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
. . . and is only therefore exceeded by your arrogance. I, Sassy, am right about everything and anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant!
-
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, jeremy - as usual. We are all prone to failings - some on a low-level, such as getting unjustly angry but not violent; others on a higher-level, such as getting unjustly angry and violent; and still others on a far higher-level such as getting unjustly angry and murdering someone(s).
That some people do what we regard as bad things, either deliberately or by the result of them taking insufficient care is human artifice: and then there are the unintended accidents. This is just human behaviour.
All those failings (which of course also includes your example of rape) were not in the original plan for humanity, but are now there.
Not much of a plan then: poor quality control too - else your 'plan' is just religious superstition/myth.
We generally pray for people and situations when things have gone wrong, so that we are asking God to provide help in such a situation, be that in the form of another human who is willing to listen to or advise someone, to treat them or to encourage them.
That you can do of course, and no doubt with good intentions, but this activity occurring isn't confirmation that there will be consequences that can be directly attributed to these prayers.
Whist your question is a valid questiuon, it can be very difficult to know just how many people have been encouraged and/or taught how to avoid letting the more destructive tendencies that humans can exhibit take them over. For instance, we don't know just how many people who have a tendency to rape have managed to control those urges as a result of their faith in Christ or a discussion or listening session they've had with someone sent by God for that purpose.
Not only do you not know 'how many' - you don't know if there are any at all without some method to identify any divine intervention.
I've no doubt that people seeking to change aspects of their personal circumstances might well find positive involvement in religion, and the support of others that follows, and that this may well support them in making lifestyle changes etc - although some may not benefit so it would be important to know about the failures too. However, this type of response involving focused group support isn't just a religious matter, where there are many non-religious organisations dealing with a range of issues that work using a similar ethos.
-
someone sent by God for that purpose.
How do you think god 'sends' that someone?
-
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, jeremy - as usual.
Actually, I think you'll find out it's a straw and you are grasping.
All those failings (which of course also includes your example of rape) were not in the original plan for humanity, but are now there.
So God's plan includes rape.
We generally pray for people and situations when things have gone wrong, so that we are asking God to provide help in such a situation
Have you ever heard of "prevention is better than cure". You are doing it all wrong.
be that in the form of another human who is willing to listen to or advise someone, to treat them or to encourage them.
So it is wrong to manipulate the free will of a rapist but it is absolutely fine to do the same to other people to clear up the mess.
we don't know just how many people who have a tendency to rape have managed to control those urges as a result of their faith in Christ or a discussion or listening session they've had with someone sent by God for that purpose.
Again, you have God manipulating free will, but not so effectively as to stop rape from happening and always manipulating the good guys.
-
From a purely naturalistic pov, I'd agree, Floo. However, as I've pointed out several times before, I (and others on this board) don't believe that life is exclusively naturalistic.
But you have no evidence it isn't so.
-
Whilst it is conceivable Jesus was crucified as he had made so many enemies, the resurrection story has no credibility to it whatsoever.
What credibility is that?
What credibility would you use to measure. Over a third of the world are Christian.
So given this... then credence is given to the evidence that a third of the worlds population against a two third mixed so separated gives Christ resurrection the most support that it is true.
As I said what credibility were you referring to? If truth you were not there but the disciples were. How do you apply credibility to anything which occurred in history. Given 2,000 years the belief still with us and the only religion where nothing has been disproved in any way what so ever.
I guess you have to show what exactly you are referring to when you say there is no credibility.
Given a third of the worlds population and given the different beliefs I think it is a credible fact which at least supports that something is true.
-
Even if the whole universe was Christian it still doesn't give the resurrection story any credibility as there is no evidence it actually happened. The Biblical accounts are NOT evidence!
-
Even if the whole universe was Christian it still doesn't give the resurrection story any credibility as there is no evidence it actually happened. The Biblical accounts are NOT evidence!
You haven't provided what was asked.
-
You haven't provided what was asked.
Like what, that people don't come back from the dead? What verifiable evidence is there that anyone who is truly dead has come back to life once more? You haven't any, only hearsay from documents which were written way back in time. If Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to Herod, Pilate, the Roman soldiers who crucified him and everyone who had issues with him?
-
What credibility is that?
What credibility would you use to measure. Over a third of the world are Christian.
So not even a slim majority.
So given this... then credence is given to the evidence that a third of the worlds population against a two third mixed so separated gives Christ resurrection the most support that it is true.
No, the two thirds do not believe the resurrection story.
-
Probably half the world has never heard of Jesus though...
-
If Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to Herod, Pilate, the Roman soldiers who crucified him and everyone who had issues with him?
Same reason why he wouldn't perform miracles for them, I guess.
-
Probably half the world has never heard of Jesus though...
the JWs have got their work cut out then!
-
Even if the whole universe was Christian it still doesn't give the resurrection story any credibility as there is no evidence it actually happened. The Biblical accounts are NOT evidence!
And your warrant for asserting that they are not evidence is?
-
And your warrant for asserting that they are not evidence is?
Because they are not credible and not supported by independent authors of the time.
-
Because they are not credible and not supported by independent authors of the time.
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but the argument that you often use - namely that the authors were not members of Jesus' 12 disciples but other people writing some years after his death and purported resurrection - is actually a strong indicator of their independence. Add to that, St Paul's references to the resurrection and the fact that, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions by folk, on both sides of the debate, that he didn't meet with the leaders of the Jerusalem church until quite some time into his ministry, and you have a further strand of independent evidence. Finally, since it is generally accepted that Luke was an independent rapporteur, you have a 3rd such strand.
-
Probably half the world has never heard of Jesus though...
Meaning half the World is condemned to an eternity in hell even though they never even had the chance to turn to Christ. Your god is a monster.
-
Meaning half the World is condemned to an eternity in hell even though they never even had the chance to turn to Christ. Your god is a monster.
If that were true, it would indeed be evil.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but the argument that you often use - namely that the authors were not members of Jesus' 12 disciples but other people writing some years after his death and purported resurrection - is actually a strong indicator of their independence.
Two of the gospels copied Mark. That's a strong indicator of dependence, not independence.
Add to that, St Paul's references to the resurrection
Paul's version of the resurrection is nothing like that of the gospels.
and the fact that, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions by folk, on both sides of the debate, that he didn't meet with the leaders of the Jerusalem church until quite some time into his ministry, and you have a further strand of independent evidence.
But wasn't at the resurrection and he explicitly claims his teachings came from revelation which means you can't claim him as a source at all.
Finally, since it is generally accepted that Luke was an independent rapporteur
Explain how his gospel copies over 90% of Mark and a large proportion of Matthew and yet maintains independence.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but the argument that you often use - namely that the authors were not members of Jesus' 12 disciples but other people writing some years after his death and purported resurrection - is actually a strong indicator of their independence.
NO! It is not "a strong indicator of their independence", it is poisitive evidence that what they are writing is HEARSAY and NOT first hand knowledge.
So far there is not a single item of evidence that was written at the time of Christ - it is all recollection - even the four gospels were written after the passage of years and human memory is fallble!
Only something written at the time is viable evidence - and there isn't a single item available that qualifies!
Anything written that might contradict the Church's version of history was re-written, hidden in the Vatican archives or destroyed yonks ago!
-
Meaning half the World is condemned to an eternity in hell even though they never even had the chance to turn to Christ. Your god is a monster.
[/quote
Which group of Christians do you know who believe that Jeremy? God will judge us on what we know.
-
Meaning half the World is condemned to an eternity in hell even though they never even had the chance to turn to Christ. Your god is a monster.
God will judge us on what we know.
In that case Jeremy is right - the half of the world that has "never even had the chance to turn to Christ" is going to be judged because they have never sought him (Christ), or knowledge of him (Christ), out!.
-
NO! It is not "a strong indicator of their independence", it is poisitive evidence that what they are writing is HEARSAY and NOT first hand knowledge.
So far there is not a single item of evidence that was written at the time of Christ - it is all recollection - even the four gospels were written after the passage of years and human memory is fallble!
Only something written at the time is viable evidence - and there isn't a single item available that qualifies!
Anything written that might contradict the Church's version of history was re-written, hidden in the Vatican archives or destroyed yonks ago!
Exactly
-
It should be noted that it is unknown who wrote the gospels!
-
NO! It is not "a strong indicator of their independence", it is poisitive evidence that what they are writing is HEARSAY and NOT first hand knowledge.
No, what no-one has ever said is that the writers weren't eye-witnesses of the events - what they have said is that they weren't the disciples Matthew and John; or Mark, who the early Church understood to be the lad who was following Jesus and the disciples when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane - Mark 14: 51-2
So far there is not a single item of evidence that was written at the time of Christ - it is all recollection - even the four gospels were written after the passage of years and human memory is fallble!
Unfortunately, there is no evience that there is no such evidence, Owl. Yes, I realise that that may sound a tad tortuous, but with the earliest extant document or fragment dating from about 150 years after the death and resurrection events, t is actually very difficult to know when the materials were originally penned. If, as suggested by some, Mark was the lad who followed Jesus and the disciples to Gethsemane, the fact that the commonly held date for his Gospel - the early 60s AD - is 30-odd years after the events is largely irrelevant, as he would have been an eye-witness. The added suggestion, that he acted a scribe for Peter's recollections also point to the possibility of eye-witness accounts. Human memory is not as fallible as you like to make out when momentous events occur.
Only something written at the time is viable evidence - and there isn't a single item available that qualifies!
In which case, most of the histories of the First and Second World Wars, most major world events of the last 3000 years, etc. are invalid.
Anything written that might contradict the Church's version of history was re-written, hidden in the Vatican archives or destroyed yonks ago!
OK, evidence for these three claims please. Remember, too, that hiding them 'in the Vatican archives' smacks more of wanting to preserve that destroy them.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but the argument that you often use - namely that the authors were not members of Jesus' 12 disciples but other people writing some years after his death and purported resurrection - is actually a strong indicator of their independence. Add to that, St Paul's references to the resurrection and the fact that, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions by folk, on both sides of the debate, that he didn't meet with the leaders of the Jerusalem church until quite some time into his ministry, and you have a further strand of independent evidence. Finally, since it is generally accepted that Luke was an independent rapporteur, you have a 3rd such strand.
On what basis have you been able to exclude the risk of mistakes or lies in these accounts?
-
No, what no-one has ever said is that the writers weren't eye-witnesses of the events - what they have said is that they weren't the disciples Matthew and John; or Mark, who the early Church understood to be the lad who was following Jesus and the disciples when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane - Mark 14: 51-2
Unfortunately, there is no evience that there is no such evidence, Owl. Yes, I realise that that may sound a tad tortuous, but with the earliest extant document or fragment dating from about 150 years after the death and resurrection events, t is actually very difficult to know when the materials were originally penned. If, as suggested by some, Mark was the lad who followed Jesus and the disciples to Gethsemane, the fact that the commonly held date for his Gospel - the early 60s AD - is 30-odd years after the events is largely irrelevant, as he would have been an eye-witness. The added suggestion, that he acted a scribe for Peter's recollections also point to the possibility of eye-witness accounts. Human memory is not as fallible as you like to make out when momentous events occur.
In which case, most of the histories of the First and Second World Wars, most major world events of the last 3000 years, etc. are invalid.
OK, evidence for these three claims please. Remember, too, that hiding them 'in the Vatican archives' smacks more of wanting to preserve that destroy them.
Hope - you are truly hopeless!
You are so indoctrinated into blindness that nothing short of a brick with a message from your God himself tied to it hitting you in the head will ever change your blinkered and pathetic attachment to the "History of Christianity as Christians wish it was as re-written by other Christians", otherwise know and the (Un)Holy Bible.
All you posts prove is that you are not half as clever or as knowledgable as you would have us think you are and that Sunday School indoctrination and brainwashing works!
-
Meaning half the World is condemned to an eternity in hell even though they never even had the chance to turn to Christ. Your god is a monster.
Which group of Christians do you know who believe that Jeremy? God will judge us on what we know.
What does happen to the billions of people throughout history who never heard of Jesus then?
-
No, what no-one has ever said is that the writers weren't eye-witnesses of the events - what they have said is that they weren't the disciples Matthew and John; or Mark, who the early Church understood to be the lad who was following Jesus and the disciples when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane - Mark 14: 51-2
Unfortunately, there is no evience that there is no such evidence, Owl. Yes, I realise that that may sound a tad tortuous, but with the earliest extant document or fragment dating from about 150 years after the death and resurrection events, t is actually very difficult to know when the materials were originally penned. If, as suggested by some, Mark was the lad who followed Jesus and the disciples to Gethsemane, the fact that the commonly held date for his Gospel - the early 60s AD - is 30-odd years after the events is largely irrelevant, as he would have been an eye-witness. The added suggestion, that he acted a scribe for Peter's recollections also point to the possibility of eye-witness accounts. Human memory is not as fallible as you like to make out when momentous events occur.
In which case, most of the histories of the First and Second World Wars, most major world events of the last 3000 years, etc. are invalid.
OK, evidence for these three claims please. Remember, too, that hiding them 'in the Vatican archives' smacks more of wanting to preserve that destroy them.
OK Hope, now it is up to you to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. They are as credible as some of the stuff you believe to be true, but cannot produce the evidence to support your claim.
-
No, what no-one has ever said is that the writers weren't eye-witnesses of the events
It isn't known that they were eye-witnesses though: isn't that the case?
- - what they have said is that they weren't the disciples Matthew and John; or Mark, who the early Church understood to be the lad who was following Jesus and the disciples when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane - Mark 14: 51-2
What the early church 'understood' isn't necessarily compelling - how do you know they didn't misunderstand, bearing in mind the uncertain provenance of at least some of the NT?
Unfortunately, there is no evience that there is no such evidence, Owl.
Seems like a version of the negative proof fallacy.
Yes, I realise that that may sound a tad tortuous, but with the earliest extant document or fragment dating from about 150 years after the death and resurrection events, t is actually very difficult to know when the materials were originally penned. If, as suggested by some, Mark was the lad who followed Jesus and the disciples to Gethsemane, the fact that the commonly held date for his Gospel - the early 60s AD - is 30-odd years after the events is largely irrelevant, as he would have been an eye-witness. The added suggestion, that he acted a scribe for Peter's recollections also point to the possibility of eye-witness accounts. Human memory is not as fallible as you like to make out when momentous events occur.
Gloriously imprecise, and in view of the provenance uncertainties all this stuff comes with too many risks to be regarded as reliable.
In which case, most of the histories of the First and Second World Wars, most major world events of the last 3000 years, etc. are invalid.
This is tu quoque, and of course the provenance of these more recent accounts (WW1 and WW2) is much easier to check - even then mistakes and lies are risks as is the overt use of propaganda.
Your dependence on the NT looks like special pleading, since it seems you won't address the risks of mistakes or lies, which leads to an argument from authority, which is yet another fallacy.
-
On what basis have you been able to exclude the risk of mistakes or lies in these accounts?
Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk. For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources). It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.
We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead. Letters by the church fathers, for example. Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.
So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.
Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme, and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.
So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.
-
Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk. For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources). It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.
How is it "quite certain"? There is no evidence to give your statement certainty!
We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead. Letters by the church fathers, for example. Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.
Rubbish! There are no firsthand accounts of anything that is claimed for Christ that were written at the time and the human memory is fallible engendering all kinds of incorrect memories = mistakes.
So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.
Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme (just like his father!), and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.
So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.
Again this comment is rubbish as there are NO first hand reports that were written at the time.
Believing the gospels are true is the result of your childhood brainwashing amd a serious sign of a dangerously closed mind!
-
Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk.
But you haven't as yet, so it still stands.
For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources). It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.
Don't be silly, Spud - what they authors believed, or said they believed, isn't an indication of truth: they could be mistaken or telling lies: so these risks remain.
We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead.
You have anecdotal reports of uncertain provenance making remarkable claims, and you're still ignoring the risks of mistakes or lies.
Letters by the church fathers, for example. Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.
This is special pleading, Spud, and you're still trying hard to avoid dealing with the risks. Lots of people believed the recent propaganda surrounding Brexit but it wasn't all true.
So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.
Even more silly, Spud - a more credible argument is that since these anecdotal claims of the divine are indistinguishable from fiction, emanate from a time and place where people were more credulous regarding religious claims and were written by supporters of Jesus then theses NT stories are best seen as being essentially ancient (and possibly biased) religious superstition.
Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme, and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.
So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.
Nope - believing in the gospels seems both unreasonable and very naive. Don't believe every thing you read Spud, and especially where the provenance is unknown, the claims are highly unusual and where the accounts are written by supporters of the cause. You seem determined to avoid considering that the risks that apply to all human accounts also apply to the NT, where to deliberately ring-fence the NT claims as being immune from reasonable doubt is special pleading.
-
Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk. For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources).
Which sources? I'll give you Paul and Acts as a starter.
It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.
Nope. Even if the authors believed what they said to be true, it does not mean that their sources didn't lie.
We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead.
No we don't.
Letters by the church fathers, for example.
Oh please. Corroboration requires an independent source. The church fathers merely believed what they were told. You need independent contemporary material for corroboration.
Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.
No. Paul makes up a figure of 500 but we don't know if these people existed. The gospels tell us that very few people witnessed the crucifixion and the resurrection and they can't agree on what happened after the resurrection at all.
So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.
Or his followers did.
Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme, and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.
Incredible, you posit that somebody who was deceitful in the extreme would be unable to pretend to be sincere and highly moral.
So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.
They have a dead man coming alive in them. They are not credible.
-
As I have said before, if Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to people who had clout at that time instead of leaving it to a few followers to pass on the glad tidings?
-
As I have said before, if Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to people who had clout at that time instead of leaving it to a few followers to pass on the glad tidings?
Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
-
Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
Exactly, otherwise I am sure they would have been first on his list.
-
Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
Calm down, it's just a less formal version of reductio absurdum, which is a technique in maths to prove a hypothesis by assuming its negation is true and then proving a that would lead to a contradiction.
-
As I have said before, if Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to people who had clout at that time instead of leaving it to a few followers to pass on the glad tidings?
Because those people didn't accept the kind of king he was to be. They had already asked him for a sign from heaven (Matthew 16) to prove his authority to be king. They were not expecting the Christ to be someone like Jesus, who was healing and miraculously feeding Gentiles, and saying that the ceremonial law no longer applied. Presumably they thought he would defeat the Romans if he was the Christ.
-
Which sources? I'll give you Paul and Acts as a starter.
According to Justin Martyr, "The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith."
Nope. Even if the authors believed what they said to be true, it does not mean that their sources didn't lie.
What about multiple authors with multiple sources?
No we don't.
Oh please. Corroboration requires an independent source. The church fathers merely believed what they were told. You need independent contemporary material for corroboration.
What about the 27 independent books of the NT?
No. Paul makes up a figure of 500 but we don't know if these people existed. The gospels tell us that very few people witnessed the crucifixion and the resurrection and they can't agree on what happened after the resurrection at all.
Not just talking about the crucifixion and resurrection, but the miracles which were witnessed by crowds in the region. Nobody came forward and said that Jesus didn't do what is written in the gospels.
Or his followers did.
Yes, but why would they endure persecution and not just admit they'd made it up?
Incredible, you posit that somebody who was deceitful in the extreme would be unable to pretend to be sincere and highly moral.
Deceivers pretending to be moral don't endure poverty and torture etc.
They have a dead man coming alive in them. They are not credible.
To your mind, yes. Because you never saw a dead man coming alive again. But just because you haven't witnessed something doesn't mean it can't happen.
The gospels pass every test for authenticity, but miracles can't happen. Oh dear.
-
Which group of Christians do you know who believe that Jeremy? God will judge us on what we know.
What does happen to the billions of people throughout history who never heard of Jesus then?
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done
Revelation 20
-
Not just talking about the crucifixion and resurrection, but the miracles which were witnessed by crowds in the region. Nobody came forward and said that Jesus didn't do what is written in the gospels.
So the story goes: and a post-hoc one at that, so not much different from the story that Gandalf made great fireworks. The latter is acknowledged fiction as could be the the former unless you've meaningfully excluded this risk - it seems you haven't.
Yes, but why would they endure persecution and not just admit they'd made it up?
Not again! They may well have honestly believed the Jesus myth and were killed for it: this doesn't mean the myth is true.
Deceivers pretending to be moral don't endure poverty and torture etc.
Except maybe they were the ones who were deceived.
To your mind, yes. Because you never saw a dead man coming alive again. But just because you haven't witnessed something doesn't mean it can't happen.
Some things can't happen, Spud: ask your local undertaker if death is invariably permanent: you'll find it is, with no exceptions.
The gospels pass every test for authenticity, but miracles can't happen. Oh dear.
The gospels are indistinguishable from fiction: oh dear!
-
Like what, that people don't come back from the dead? What verifiable evidence is there that anyone who is truly dead has come back to life once more? You haven't any, only hearsay from documents which were written way back in time. If Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to Herod, Pilate, the Roman soldiers who crucified him and everyone who had issues with him?
LOADS of documentation.... Look at Andrew Wommacks Son. He came back from the dead.
If you don't look (and you don't) then you will remain ignorant won't you.
-
I'd never heard of Andrew Wommack but here is something in which he mentions his son, towards the end.
http://www.awmi.net/reading/teaching-articles/reality_faith/
-
Calm down, it's just a less formal version of reductio absurdum, which is a technique in maths to prove a hypothesis by assuming its negation is true and then proving a that would lead to a contradiction.
Oh I am calm. The capita;s were fort emphasis addressed to those of our number who, as yet, are unable to grasp that simple fact!
-
LOADS of documentation.... Look at Andrew Wommacks Son. He came back from the dead.
If you don't look (and you don't) then you will remain ignorant won't you.
I have checked "Andrew Wommack's son" and can find no reference to anyone EXCEPT Wommack himself who "witnessed" his son's resurrection.
The heading to the Wikipedia entry for "Andrew Wommack's son" is quite telling:
This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.
-
I'd never heard of Andrew Wommack but here is something in which he mentions his son, towards the end.
http://www.awmi.net/reading/teaching-articles/reality_faith/
I also found the youtube link below Owlswing but am not going to look at it now, maybe later after I've had a sleep. There's quite a bit about him and his claims about his son on the 'net, I will look into his ministry which seems like a big business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJQcuipwsBM
This is from the ex-wife of one of Wommack's sons:
https://disqus.com/by/disqus_1j9QhTWq26/
Even allowing for her bias, it makes harrowing reading.
There is more.
I find it very sad indeed that someone like him can enter people's houses via the television and exploit those who are sick, lonely and unhappy. We don't have much of that sort of thing on TV here, thank goodness, though there are channels that people can pay for which broadcast the American evangelists.
The Word of Faith/Health and Prosperity gospels are based on a distortion of Biblical teaching but they reach out to people whose lives are sad, giving them false hope. i could weep.
Off to bed now, sorry for poor grammar, I'm a bit tired. Night night xxx
-
I have checked "Andrew Wommack's son" and can find no reference to anyone EXCEPT Wommack himself who "witnessed" his son's resurrection.
The heading to the Wikipedia entry for "Andrew Wommack's son" is quite telling:
This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.
Wikipedia are you for real... That is not the way to research the truth about him raising his Son from the dead.
Look and read the real event. Andrews Son had been killed in a car accident he was in the morgue fridge when Andrew and his wife arrived after several hours of travelling.
So if you want to read the facts then go to his own site and the hospital witnesses.
-
Wikipedia are you for real... That is not the way to research the truth about him raising his Son from the dead.
Look and read the real event. Andrews Son had been killed in a car accident he was in the morgue fridge when Andrew and his wife arrived after several hours of travelling.
So if you want to read the facts then go to his own site and the hospital witnesses.
Just out of interest, is there formal confirmation of clinical death that is wholly independent of Wommack?
I'd image the local coroner (or whatever the US title is) would be very interested in the circumstances and the competence of whoever certified the death: at the very least an investigation into the circumstances.
-
Because those people didn't accept the kind of king he was to be. They had already asked him for a sign from heaven (Matthew 16) to prove his authority to be king. They were not expecting the Christ to be someone like Jesus, who was healing and miraculously feeding Gentiles, and saying that the ceremonial law no longer applied. Presumably they thought he would defeat the Romans if he was the Christ.
Yeh right!
-
LOADS of documentation.... Look at Andrew Wommacks Son. He came back from the dead.
If you don't look (and you don't) then you will remain ignorant won't you.
No one who is truly dead comes back that is just NOT possible. Wommack's son obviously wasn't really dead!
-
I've found everything I can, some I've already detailed above, but it is quite difficult to get hold of the actual data. So much is vague and I wonder why.
This is what Wommack himself says about his son's 'death':
When my youngest son, Peter, died on March 4, 2001, my wife and I spoke our faith and said, “The first report is not the last report.” We spoke resurrection life back into Peter’s body, and then we headed into town. It was one hour and fifteen minutes from the time we got the call until we got to where Peter was. During that time, I was operating in faith. I remembered prophecies that had not yet come to pass in Peter’s life, and therefore, I knew it wasn’t time for Peter to die. I rejoiced by faith, seeing Peter alive and well.
My oldest son, Joshua, met me at the door and said, “Dad, five or ten minutes after I called you, Peter just sat up.” Thank You, Jesus! This is the point: I didn’t rejoice more once I saw Peter raised from the dead than I did while I was still driving. During the drive, I knew Peter was alive, and I was rejoicing with all my might. It was actually anticlimactic when I saw in the physical what I had already seen in the spiritual. Don’t get me wrong; I was blessed and I rejoiced to see my son raised up after being dead for five hours. But the physical reality wasn’t more real to me than the spiritual reality of faith.
It appears that the medics concerned are not prepared to talk about it. Very strange.
There are also reports that Peter (full name Jonathan Peter) committed suicide at a later date, I don't know if that is true or not but surely there would be a report of it somewhere. He is supposed to have served a prison sentence in El Paso for wife beating too. Mind you, if true neither would be surprising if he is the product of parents who pretend he was raised from the dead, imagine living with that rope around your neck. He must have been seriously disturbed.
Andrew Wommack seems to be an extremely powerful person.
-
A relative once told us the dead were being raised in Africa. When we asked why it wasn't headline news, he claimed that they wanted to keep it under wraps as people might scoff, as if they would! :D
-
When you do an internet search on this most of the top results all point to his own websites. It also seems his take on Christianity is quite profitable. http://www.the-net-worth.com/2016/06/andrew-wommack/
Where is the independent confirmation of death? If a death certificate was issued in error this would be of concern to the relevant authorities for both the registration of deaths and the competence of whoever certified the death certificate, so I'd imagine this would have been noted by the authorities given the (self)publicity from Wommack.
If there is no death certificate then this tale would best view viewed as being unreconstructed bollocks: ideal though for the business of extracting money from the chronically gullible.
-
When you do an internet search on this most of the top results all point to his own websites. It also seems his take on Christianity is quite profitable. http://www.the-net-worth.com/2016/06/andrew-wommack/
Where is the independent confirmation of death? If a death certificate was issued in error this would be of concern to the relevant authorities for both the registration of deaths and the competence of whoever certified the death certificate, so I'd imagine this would have been noted by the authorities given the (self)publicity from Wommack.
If there is no death certificate then this tale would best view viewed as being unreconstructed bollocks: ideal though for the business of extracting money from the chronically gullible.
Gordon
. . . would best (be) viewed as being unreconstructed bollocks.
Could you not have foumd a more technical term than "unreconstructed bollocks"?
Actually, on second thoughts, it is probably as accurate a description as it is possible to find!
-
Gordon
Could you not have foumd a more technical term than "unreconstructed bollocks"?
Actually, on second thoughts, it is probably as accurate a description as it is possible to find!
:D
-
So the story goes: and a post-hoc one at that, so not much different from the story that Gandalf made great fireworks. The latter is acknowledged fiction as could be the the former unless you've meaningfully excluded this risk - it seems you haven't
Not again! They may well have honestly believed the Jesus myth and were killed for it: this doesn't mean the myth is true.
Except maybe they were the ones who were deceived.
Some things can't happen, Spud: ask your local undertaker if death is invariably permanent: you'll find it is, with no exceptions.
The gospels are indistinguishable from fiction: oh dear!
Ah, so having eliminated the risk of lies and mistakes, now you're saying it's made up, like Lord of the rings. This is probably the best argument. Unlike LOTR, though, it's set in a historical context - the Roman occupation of Judea. Some of the characters are historical people. It describes certain events that are know to have happened (eg the Roman Census, AD 70). It's style is characteristic of a historical report. I can't say I have heard of any fiction writer who's been put to death for their work? And how come Christianity wasn't eliminated? I know none of these things prove the miracles to be non-fiction, but it is easy to see that if you lived in the first century, the witnesses to the miracles would have been available to cross-examine. If they had been lying or making it up or mistaken, they would have been exposed and we would expect to find other literature telling us the gospels were fakes.
-
Gordon is right, there is no death certificate; it would be on record if there were. It also appears the son in question was quite disturbed by all of the stuff surrounding his supposed death and who wouldn't be.
Unreconstructed bollocks fits the bill but I do find it deeply sad that people, including one of our fellow posters, actually believe what the man says. I've never seen him preach on television but I don't have satellite channels or whatever he would be on, but there are many who do and obviously he is well known over the pond. He exploits the vulnerable. I feel very sorry indeed for the vulnerable who need protection. I can see it brings light and comfort into their lives but it's false, exploitative and it is up to those around them to be caring and try to introduce some legitimate comfort to them.
-
Gordon is right, there is no death certificate; it would be on record if there were. It also appears the son in question was quite disturbed by all of the stuff surrounding his supposed death and who wouldn't be.
Unreconstructed bollocks fits the bill but I do find it deeply sad that people, including one of our fellow posters, actually believe what the man says. I've never seen him preach on television but I don't have satellite channels or whatever he would be on, but there are many who do and obviously he is well known over the pond. He exploits the vulnerable. I feel very sorry indeed for the vulnerable who need protection. I can see it brings light and comfort into their lives but it's false, exploitative and it is up to those around them to be caring and try to introduce some legitimate comfort to them.
If you watched the audiences in those religious TV stations, Brownie - most of them, running 24/7 - you'd realise that Sassy is by no means alone in believing their bollocks.
It is wrong that they're allowed to get away with conning people in that way, but I suppose free speech rules, eh!
Personally, I wouldn't dream of buying a used car off of any one of the presenters of these shows.
-
Gordon is right, there is no death certificate; it would be on record if there were. It also appears the son in question was quite disturbed by all of the stuff surrounding his supposed death and who wouldn't be.
Unreconstructed bollocks fits the bill but I do find it deeply sad that people, including one of our fellow posters, actually believe what the man says. I've never seen him preach on television but I don't have satellite channels or whatever he would be on, but there are many who do and obviously he is well known over the pond. He exploits the vulnerable. I feel very sorry indeed for the vulnerable who need protection. I can see it brings light and comfort into their lives but it's false, exploitative and it is up to those around them to be caring and try to introduce some legitimate comfort to them.
Good post. :)
-
I've actually seen this guy's TV show. Channel 287 of the VirginMedia service is the 'God' channel, which consists mainly of USA stuff plus of course the adverts to extract dosh from the faithful.
Since I retired the ironing has been delegated to me (which I quite enjoy doing during the day when Mrs G is working) so I stick the ironing board in front of the telly and make it a rule to either watch an old movie (watched Harvey just the other day whilst ironing) or look at the myriad of channels that I wouldn't normally touch with a bargepole.
I've alighted on this guy several times: his presentation style is, I think, creepy and of course the content is utterly bizarre. For a real laugh though you need to catch the 'conferences' they broadcast - just for a few minutes though, any longer is unbearable - leaving aside the nonsense from the platform you get to see the even odder sight of US hallelujah merchants 'a-whoopin it up', and in some cases there is the added delight of attempted religious rock (sounds like an oxymoron) music - then I press any button on the channel changer before I lose the will to keep ironing!
-
If you watched the audiences in those religious TV stations, Brownie - most of them, running 24/7 - you'd realise that Sassy is by no means alone in believing their bollocks.
It is wrong that they're allowed to get away with conning people in that way, but I suppose free speech rules, eh!
Personally, I wouldn't dream of buying a used car off of any one of the presenters of these shows.
I have watched the God Channel from time to time, I am totally gobsmacked by the total garbage which flows from the mouths of those conmen! It is so very sad that some people are gullible enough to believe every word they say, and line those shysters' pockets very generously.
Talking of buying a used car off them, puts me in mind of a 'born again' who gave it large on a Sunday in church, but had a business selling used cars during the week. He had a reputation for ripping people off, and was prosecuted, I believed!
-
I have watched the God Channel from time to time, I am totally gobsmacked by the total garbage which flows from the mouths of those conmen! It is so very sad that some people are gullible enough to believe every word they say, and line those shysters' pockets very generously.
Talking of buying a used car off them, puts me in mind of a 'born again' who gave it large on a Sunday in church, but had a business selling used cars during the week. He had a reputation for ripping people off, and was prosecuted, I believed!
I've only very occasionally watched the Gd Channel - I have better things to use my time with - but it should be noted that not all the programmes are run by or even fronted by such folk. I've watched coverage of a couple of excellent worship conferences that don't even attempt to get money off one.
-
I've only very occasionally watched the Gd Channel - I have better things to use my time with - but it should be noted that not all the programmes are run by or even fronted by such folk. I've watched coverage of a couple of excellent worship conferences that don't even attempt to get money off one.
This in no way excuses the outright money-grabbing of the rest of them that is thelife-blood odf Americam TV evangelism.
-
My late elderly, wealthy, great aunt, a Christian, was somehow conned into giving that shyster, Oral Roberts, several thousands of pounds in the 60s, he even sent her one of his grotty plastic prayer towers as a thank you! Her son soon put a stop to it when he discovered what was going on.
Some years ago my brother-in-law and his wife were in America and went to see Benny Hinn in action. Apparently the guy can put on quite a show, rather like that of a first class magician, so it is no wonder the more gullible are taken in by that conman.
-
This in no way excuses the outright money-grabbing of the rest of them that is thelife-blood odf Americam TV evangelism.
I didn't say it did, Owl; just pointing out that that isn't the extent of the content. The likes of Oral Roberts have been around for decades, and not merely within the religious context.
-
How is it "quite certain"? There is no evidence to give your statement certainty!
It's certain the authors believed what they wrote to be true because, as I said, they were persecuted for continuing to preach. This would have caused them to give up if they were lying or had made it up.
Rubbish! There are no firsthand accounts of anything that is claimed for Christ that were written at the time and the human memory is fallible engendering all kinds of incorrect memories = mistakes.
Matthew was an eye-witness. John, the beloved disciple, wrote the fourth gospel (by dictating to a secretary) and three letters.
Paul describes Christ appearing to him in 1 Cor 15:
"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."
Mark probably was the young man in Mk 14:51
Luke was not an eyewitness. But he traveled with Paul (see Acts) to whom Jesus had appeared. This would have been hearsay even to readers in the first century if they didn't have statements from Paul's letters that confirm what he taught Luke.
Again this comment is rubbish as there are NO first hand reports that were written at the time.
See above.
Believing the gospels are true is the result of your childhood brainwashing and a serious sign of a dangerously closed mind!
No, I didn't get confirmed with the youth group but later when I was sure it was what I believed.
-
I didn't say it did, Owl; just pointing out that that isn't the extent of the content. The likes of Oral Roberts have been around for decades, and not merely within the religious context.
Whilst one bad apple can spoil the entire barrel, one good apple will never rescue a barrel of bad ones, and, IMO, the entire American evangelical Christian movement, whether TV, Radio or the press, stinks to high heaven (if such actually exists) of sanictimonious avarice, and in some cases, sexual depravity.
-
Whilst one bad apple can spoil the entire barrel, one good apple will never rescue a barrel of bad ones, and, IMO, the entire American evangelical Christian movement, whether TV, Radio or the press, stinks to high heaven (if such actually exists) of sanictimonious avarice, and in some cases, sexual depravity.
Owl, I think that your generalisation about the "entire American evangelical Christian movement" using legitimate examples which make up a small fraction of that group of people is somewhat misleading. I accept that the likes of Roberts, Falwell, Copeland, Hinn and the rest are extremely bad examples of what religion can do, but its also worth remembering the work that the likes of Jim Wallis, John Wimber and Vineyard and thousands of local evangelical congregations across the States do in terms of working with homelessness, drug addiction, human trafficking victims, etc. It is so easy to caricature a particular group of people in a given way according to the behaviour of a minority - think of the way that the British media have traditionally caricatured British youth, or the Muslim community. It is far more difficult to separate out the bad apples and highlight them, whilst also highlighting the good apples.
Finally, with several of the bad apples we've mentioned, they aren't even mainstream evangelical. They all peddle forms of the Prosperity Gospel which bears very little relation to to Biblical teaching, and which has only really begun to have an influence in the last 30+ years. The only reason we hear so much about them is because of their quirks and foibles.
-
This in no way excuses the outright money-grabbing of the rest of them that is thelife-blood odf Americam TV evangelism.
Again, I'm not trying to say otherwise. Thankfully, though, they are a minority, even if they make a lot of the noise.
-
Whilst one bad apple can spoil the entire barrel, one good apple will never rescue a barrel of bad ones, and, IMO, the entire American evangelical Christian movement, whether TV, Radio or the press, stinks to high heaven (if such actually exists) of sanictimonious avarice, and in some cases, sexual depravity.
I agree it certainly doesn't have a good reputation.
I have just come across this list of disgraced evangelists.
http://theevangelists.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/hall-of-shame.html
-
Again, I'm not trying to say otherwise. Thankfully, though, they are a minority, even if they make a lot of the noise.
Hope - you are still trying to defend the indefencible!
-
I am just testing because, three or four times, I've tried to post a longer-but-not-that-long reply to this thread and I keep getting a 'Forbidden' message. I've copied it and tried to post again with the copy, altered it, reduced the paragraphs and it still doesn't work. Maybe it isn't meant to be but I'll try again in a bit, especially if this one sticks.
-----------------------
No joy, I do not have permission to access index php and have encountered Forbidden 403 something.
Anyone else had this?
In the meantime I'll try to rewrite it and if it doesn't work this time I will give up.
-
It is really irritating when that happens, Brownie, it happens to me about once a week, or so.
-
I am just testing because, three or four times, I've tried to post a longer-but-not-that-long reply to this thread and I keep getting a 'Forbidden' message. I've copied it and tried to post again with the copy, altered it, reduced the paragraphs and it still doesn't work. Maybe it isn't meant to be but I'll try again in a bit, especially if this one sticks.
-----------------------
No joy, I do not have permission to access index php and have encountered Forbidden 403 something.
Anyone else had this?
In the meantime I'll try to rewrite it and if it doesn't work this time I will give up.
The board has some odd bit of programming which censors some things. Never been able to work it out. If there is an obvious word that might be triggering it, try putting spaces in it.
-
I think I've lost it now NS and will have to re-compose. I can't imagine any of the words I used are controversial but I know boards vary and pick up on all sorts. Interesting that floo has the same problem regularly (I've had it before), so it must be fairly common.
Anyway I'll try doing it again later, it's not that important. Thanks for help.
-
I think I've lost it now NS and will have to re-compose. I can't imagine any of the words I used are controversial but I know boards vary and pick up on all sorts. Interesting that floo has the same problem regularly (I've had it before), so it must be fairly common.
Anyway I'll try doing it again later, it's not that important. Thanks for help.
A firm I used to work for had a system that would not all you to type a surname of "Black" (refused due to racism) or the county of Middlesex, or at least not in full!
-
Just out of interest, is there formal confirmation of clinical death that is wholly independent of Wommack?
The hospital staff and doctors.
I'd image the local coroner (or whatever the US title is) would be very interested in the circumstances and the competence of whoever certified the death: at the very least an investigation into the circumstances.
Are you telling me or asking me, Gordon?
It is a miracle but not the only miracle happening amongst the people at his Church.
I see no reason for you not to contact them and ask directly. :)
-
No one who is truly dead comes back that is just NOT possible. Wommack's son obviously wasn't really dead!
You see NO OPEN MIND NO REALLY WANT OF TRUTH.
You see your problem you deny it without even looking at the evidence.
THE PROFESSIONALS DO NOT PUT LIVE PEOPLE IN MORGUE FRIDGES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJQcuipwsBM
-
The hospital staff and doctors would not speak about it. At least that is what I have read from a couple of sources on the internet. However, everyone knows that reports aren't necessaarily reliable so if there are any others that authenticate Mr Wommack's claims, please copy and post a link.
-
Because those people didn't accept the kind of king he was to be. They had already asked him for a sign from heaven (Matthew 16) to prove his authority to be king. They were not expecting the Christ to be someone like Jesus, who was healing and miraculously feeding Gentiles, and saying that the ceremonial law no longer applied. Presumably they thought he would defeat the Romans if he was the Christ.
It's all excuses with you Christians.
-
A relative once told us the dead were being raised in Africa. When we asked why it wasn't headline news, he claimed that they wanted to keep it under wraps as people might scoff, as if they would! :D
People still being raised from the dead. But you are not interested if true as your last post proved.
-
The hospital staff and doctors.Are you telling me or asking me, Gordon?
It is a miracle but not the only miracle happening amongst the people at his Church.
I see no reason for you not to contact them and ask directly. :)
Like you would get anything resembling the actual truth of the matter!
-
Here is a case of someone in England reportedly raising a person from the dead:
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watchman-on-the-wall/49708-report-robby-dawkins-raises-a-man-from-the-dead-in-england
I think the guy probably wasn't dead though he was near to it. He had had strokes before. The 'death rattle' that was heard was probably something else and before anyone says, I have heard Cheyne Stokes respiration. Still he made a remarkable recovery, apparently far better than he was before this occurred. The brain is such a complex organ.
-
According to Justin Martyr, "The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith."
How do you know he didn't get his information from Paul's letters?
What about multiple authors with multiple sources?
What about the 27 independent books of the NT?
That is a laughable statement.
As a first point, you can't count two books by the same author as being independent, so Luke and Acts are not independent. Neither are the seven genuine letters of Paul. You are already down to twenty "independent" books without breaking a sweat.
Then we note that the gospels are all dependent on Mark or his source (possibly excluding John). So, now we are down to 18 (possibly 17) independent books.
We'll stop there because to show that many of the other books are dependent on each other would require me to do a bit of Googling.
But OK, how many of the 18 independent books in the Bible detail post resurrection appearances of Jesus beyond saying "he appeared". The answer is three - the synoptics including Acts, gospel of John and Paul. How many post resurrection appearances are described in more than one place? The answer is one - Paul's conversion.
Not just talking about the crucifixion and resurrection, but the miracles which were witnessed by crowds in the region.
but none of the crowd ever wrote anything about the miracles.
Nobody came forward and said that Jesus didn't do what is written in the gospels.
The gospels were written thirty to sixty years after the event. It seems unlikely that anybody would be left to come forward.
Yes, but why would they endure persecution and not just admit they'd made it up?
How do you know they endured persecution. What documentary evidence have you got that (for example) Peter was crucified?
To your mind, yes. Because you never saw a dead man coming alive again. But just because you haven't witnessed something doesn't mean it can't happen.
Nobody has witnessed a dead man coming alive again. On the other hand, the effects of two days being dead in a hot climate have been witnessed. Jesus' brain would have been mush before he came back alive.
The gospels pass every test for authenticity, but miracles can't happen. Oh dear.
What do you mean by a test for authenticity? They certainly pass every test for being fictional.
-
It has been known for people to be actually put in their coffin when it was believed they were dead, only for them to revive, how awful for them. It must be even worse if someone comes to having actually been buried, I believe that has happened to.
-
Wikipedia are you for real... That is not the way to research the truth about him raising his Son from the dead.
Look and read the real event. Andrews Son had been killed in a car accident he was in the morgue fridge when Andrew and his wife arrived after several hours of travelling.
So if you want to read the facts then go to his own site and the hospital witnesses.
Can you find a source other than Womack himself for the things he claims?
-
In days gone by floo, there are many tests nowadays on people who have died and don't have a post mortem, to ensure they are really dead.
It is a horrifying thought, probably most people's worst nightmare. I can't even bear to think about it and if there's anything on TV that touches on the subject, I switch off.
Post mortem ensures death, indeed a PM is only performed on a dead person. Embalming is another safeguard. However death is reliably confirmed in these times, apart from that most people have to wait for a funeral so the deceased is hanging about at the undertakers for up to a fortnight, not frozen, just cold. The undertakers have a look at them every day.
Eeeewww, let's change the subject. I don't mind talking about death, am not afraid of it, but some subjects give me the horrors!
The reports of people being raised from the dead, like the one I linked to above, are probably about people who weren't really dead though they may have stopped breathing and been resuscitated.
There must be links to the medics involved in the Wommack case, I have asked for them to copied here.
-
I have just found this on Google, dated 2015.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/600659/Woman-wakes-from-dead-coffiin-buried-alive
-
The hospital staff and doctors.
So you'll have a link to the death certificate, since these are public records. In addition, in the days of modern medicine, and assuming there is a death certificate, there will then be the investigation of the wrongly issued death certificate.
It is a miracle but not the only miracle happening amongst the people at his Church.
It isn't you know since it hasn't been established that the guy was clinically dead in the first place and where the claims of resurrection come from those with a vested interest - the story is good for the Wommack business no doubt.
I see no reason for you not to contact them and ask directly. :)
Why should I do that? You raised this subject so it would be for you to follow it through and provide both a link to the key document (the death certificate) - without that, and given the vested interests involved, it would be sensible to treat this as fictitious propaganda for the lucrative Wommack cause.
-
Like you would get anything resembling the actual truth of the matter!
Case files don't lie. Would you lie if you witnessed this at a hospital?
So stop making stupid allegations even you cannot support. EXCUSES IS ALL YOU MAKE AND THEY HAVE NO WEIGHT OR MERIT since you by your suggestion the staff at the hospital less than truthful.
Are you less than truthful?
-
Case files don't lie. Would you lie if you witnessed this at a hospital?
So stop making stupid allegations even you cannot support. EXCUSES IS ALL YOU MAKE AND THEY HAVE NO WEIGHT OR MERIT since you by your suggestion the staff at the hospital less than truthful.
Are you less than truthful?
Then link to the death certificate, or failing that the formal investigation into into events in the mortuary.
If you can't then all you have are these unspecified anecdotes reported by interested parties -which is worthless as evidence of anything.
-
Case files don't lie.
What case files? I haven't seen any evidence that these case files even exist.
-
So you'll have a link to the death certificate, since these are public records. In addition, in the days of modern medicine, and assuming there is a death certificate, there will then be the investigation of the wrongly issued death certificate.
How long does someone have to be dead before a death certificate is issued?
So not viable argument on your part then.
It isn't you know since it hasn't been established that the guy was clinically dead in the first place and where the claims of resurrection come from those with a vested interest - the story is good for the Wommack business no doubt.
The facts are what they are. Since Andrew Wommack did not cause the car accident or had anything to do with his Sons death only his ressurrection. Which took place hours after his death when he was allowed to see the body which was stripped, blue and naked in the morgue where it has been for hours. Please explain your statement. Really it does not warrant an answer does it as it does not contain anything but you assumptions based on only your own bias as an atheist.
Why should I do that? You raised this subject so it would be for you to follow it through and provide both a link to the key document (the death certificate) - without that, and given the vested interests involved, it would be sensible to treat this as fictitious propaganda for the lucrative Wommack cause.
It would be expected from an educated person not to ask ridiculous questions and make up things as you have done. Death certificates are not issued at the moment of death.
The death certificate is issued officially when you present the notification from the hospital of the death and the registrar issues the certificate.
The hospital does their own post death examination to ensure everything done properly and issue the cause of death. When his Father got to the hospital no such examination would have been done. He did die and he did rise to life. If you think it did not happen then make your own searches. Why not visit the hospital?
-
What case files? I haven't seen any evidence that these case files even exist.
REALLY... IS that because you haven't researched the hospital or what happened?
Hence the reason you never learn anything, you never search for the truth.
-
REALLY... IS that because you haven't researched the hospital or what happened?
Hence the reason you never learn anything, you never search for the truth.
You raised the case so it is reasonable to ask to present the details (as opposed to the unspecified anecdotes).
-
REALLY... IS that because you haven't researched the hospital or what happened?
Hence the reason you never learn anything, you never search for the truth.
Why would I do your research for you? If you provide a link to where I can see the death certificate and the report about the incident, I'll read it. So off you go.
At the moment, his sounds like a bullshit story from an American evangelist preacher. American evangelists are more well known for their ability to gouge gullible Christians than telling the truth.
-
It's all excuses with you Christians.
Oy! Not all of us.
I'm very conscious that poor old Spud (no offence meant by use of the "old" Spud) has been trying to get a word in edgeways while we've been preoccupied with Mr Wommack and suchlike.
Floo, thanks for the link which I am not going to open as I fear it may be bad for my health :D :(.
Sassy, you must have read something somewhere in which the medics actually say what happened. They would have no reason to lie. Please do post a link, I've not been able to find one and all we have is what Andrew Wommack says.
-
Oy! Not all of us.
Apologies.
-
Case files don't lie. Would you lie if you witnessed this at a hospital?
So stop making stupid allegations even you cannot support. EXCUSES IS ALL YOU MAKE AND THEY HAVE NO WEIGHT OR MERIT since you by your suggestion the staff at the hospital less than truthful.
Are you less than truthful?
Sass, no one has come back to life who is really and truly dead, that is not possible, and you have no evidence to support that claim.
-
How long does someone have to be dead before a death certificate is issued?
So not viable argument on your part then.
I actually have quite a bit of experience of this during the first part of my NHS career: too much in fact. I'd imagine that the situation in the USA is similar to here in that death needs to be certified before mortuary staff will accept the 'customer'. In most cases of hospital deaths they are certified quite quickly, since the cause is required it needs a medic who has access to the case history and who needs to confirm that death has occurred and the cause, where the documentation in needed to register the death and arrange a funeral, and in the case of hospital deaths to remove the body from the clinical area where death occurred.
You haven't set out the details, but if the claim is that the body was in the mortuary with tag-on-toe but there is no death certificate then it probably isn't true (given the business of the vested interests in the case).
The facts are what they are.
No facts have been offered.
Since Andrew Wommack did not cause the car accident or had anything to do with his Sons death only his ressurrection.
You've yet to provide convincing evidence of the death, since if he wasn't dead then he wasn't resurrected.
Which took place hours after his death when he was allowed to see the body which was stripped, blue and naked in the morgue where it has been for hours. Please explain your statement. Really it does not warrant an answer does it as it does not contain anything but you assumptions based on only your own bias as an atheist.
One answer is that in the absence of documentation this claim may be false.
It would be expected from an educated person not to ask ridiculous questions and make up things as you have done. Death certificates are not issued at the moment of death.
When the death occurs in hospital it does, as I noted earlier. Rigor can begin after just a couple of hours so the examination of the body would be done fairly promptly - rigor starts first in the eyelids, jaw and neck and examination of the pupils is one of the key indicators of clinical death.
The death certificate is issued officially when you present the notification from the hospital of the death and the registrar issues the certificate.
Wrong - the certification of death requires a qualified medical practitioner, and in the UK it requires two separate examinations if a cremation is planned.
The hospital does their own post death examination to ensure everything done properly and issue the cause of death. When his Father got to the hospital no such examination would have been done. He did die and he did rise to life. If you think it did not happen then make your own searches. Why not visit the hospital?
This doesn't sound remotely credible - bodies don't get into mortuaries unless death has been properly certified, and if they did then that would be issue worthy of investigation.
So, where is the death certificate - since without it this story is exactly that: a story, and since you are championing it then we should expect you to present the essential details.
-
Benny Hinn claimed amputated limbs had regrown, but of course no medical evidence was forthcoming.
-
I didn't know that floo. Well I never.
I have searched for reports from the hospital, specifically the medical staff involved, where Jonathan Peter Wommack was treated and where the alleged miracle took place and cannot find anything! Neither can I find any testimony from the man himself.
Sassy, for the umpteenth time, please post a link, I've done some research which has got me nowhere.
-
This thread has become a prime demonstration of why, in all probability, this forum is attracting so few new postsers.
Two or three died-in-the wool "the bible is historical truth and fact in every detail" Christians who will refuse to change their comments or beliefs despite the efforts of at least twice and sometimes three-times their number posting details of each and every error which exists in what they are posting.
Also, just about any post that is not, originally about Christianity is very quickly diverted to make it so! (With sapologies to Jean-Luc Picard!)
-
Also, just about any post that is not, originally about Christianity is very quickly diverted to make it so! (With sapologies to Jean-Luc Picard!)
This thread is in the Christian topic and started off about a mother who thanked God for rescuing her son instead of the zoo staff. Why are you surprised it is about Christianity?
-
Yes, that's what I thought Jeremy.
Owl there are other forums that have nothing at all to do with Christianity where you would be unlikely to encounter a Christian thread. This section is the Christian topic.
-
B and J
It isNO longer about a mother allowing her child yto get in a gorilla's enclosure and doing nothing except pry for him to be saved.
It has become as I have described and to take this argument to anywhere else is to attract unwelcome attention as it is seen to be attacking the poster and not the posts - which is what I am attempting to do!
-
Alright Owlswing.
There are plenty of threads that don't even touch on Christianity, this one does at least do that.
If you want to go back to the couple prying on a gorilla while their son was being eaten, or whatever it was about, I'm sure we can, with absolootly NO poisonal attacks or unwelcome onlookers. Guides honour!
-
You raised the case so it is reasonable to ask to present the details (as opposed to the unspecified anecdotes).
Not really. I am not the one doubting Andrew Wommacks word. So if you doubt then you need the reassurance not me. If you thought evidence existed to disprove what happened we both know nothing would stop you looking for it.
-
Why would I do your research for you?
I don't need you to do any research. I have done my own and I don't doubt Andrew you do.
So perhaps you need to decide what you need for evidence. I have mine.
If you provide a link to where I can see the death certificate and the report about the incident, I'll read it. So off you go.
What death certificate. As I have already logically shown no death certificate is produced the same day of death. The coroner has to do his bit first and show the cause.
Any educated person knows this. But subterfuge and nonsense seems to be the only thing you can grasp onto. Why not say something intelligent instead of something ridiculous?
]quote]
At the moment, his sounds like a bullshit story from an American evangelist preacher. American evangelists are more well known for their ability to gouge gullible Christians than telling the truth.
[/quote]
Whilst your too lazy and too willing to sit back and not look for proof, you have no right to disbelieve anything. In fact your reply is a poor attempt to hide the fact your too scared to even look.
-
Sass, no one has come back to life who is really and truly dead, that is not possible, and you have no evidence to support that claim.
Peter Wommack and the hospital have the evidence. See them.
Oh, but your not interested in evidence or facts...
As your replies show.
-
The gospels were written thirty to sixty years after the event. It seems unlikely that anybody would be left to come forward.
Yet archeologsts are coming up with bodies from 1000, even 2000 years ago which research suggests lived into their 60s and 70s.
(apologies for the capitals that were originally here - I hadn't realised that I'd activated the Caps Lock!)
Nobody has witnessed a dead man coming alive again.
There is documentary evidence of this in at least one Gospel, jeremy.
On the other hand, the effects of two days being dead in a hot climate have been witnessed. Jesus' brain would have been mush before he came back alive.
You are, of course, assuming that Jesus was merely a human being, which is a big claim. You are also assuming that God/gods can't bypass the very natural laws which Christians and other religious people believe he/they created.
What do you mean by a test for authenticity? They certainly pass every test for being fictional.
Bearing in mind that truth can often be stranger than fiction, that claim is open to debate.
-
Not really. I am not the one doubting Andrew Wommacks word. So if you doubt then you need the reassurance not me. If you thought evidence existed to disprove what happened we both know nothing would stop you looking for it.
Nope - the burden of proof is yours since you've brought this to our attention.
As it stands, in the absence of any credible documentation, the only reasonable approach is to treat it as utter nonsense designed to appeal to the credulous.
-
Yet archeologsts are coming up with bodies from 1000, even 2000 years ago which research suggests lived into their 60s and 70s.
(apologies for the capitals that were originally here - I hadn't realised that I'd activated the Caps Lock!)
So what? That some people lived to ages that were unusual in those times doesn't imply that what they may or may not have said was true: there are the risks of mistakes and lies that you seem keen to avoid recognising.
There is documentary evidence of this in at least one Gospel, jeremy.
There are anecdotes of uncertain provenance.
You are, of course, assuming that Jesus was merely a human being, which is a big claim.
A routine claim, since there are no compelling reasons to believe otherwise given the risk of mistakes and lies in the accounts you set such store by.
You are also assuming that God/gods can't bypass the very natural laws which Christians and other religious people believe he/they created.
Reification fallacy, along with special pleading.
Bearing in mind that truth can often be stranger than fiction, that claim is open to debate.
To which you add some personal incredulity.
-
I actually have quite a bit of experience of this during the first part of my NHS career: too much in fact. I'd imagine that the situation in the USA is similar to here in that death needs to be certified before mortuary staff will accept the 'customer'. In most cases of hospital deaths they are certified quite quickly, since the cause is required it needs a medic who has access to the case history and who needs to confirm that death has occurred and the cause, where the documentation in needed to register the death and arrange a funeral, and in the case of hospital deaths to remove the body from the clinical area where death occurred.
Death being certified is NOT the same as issuing a death certificate.
My Mother was a Nurse. The Coroner confirms cause of death in a hospital. Whilst it may be an heart attack the cause is not always the same. Hence a death in hospital from injuries sustained in a car accident will not be explained by the doctor in attendance. The Coroner will having examined the body give the cause of death officially. Until the coroner makes the official decision then no death certificate or burial can take place.
You haven't set out the details, but if the claim is that the body was in the mortuary with tag-on-toe but there is no death certificate then it probably isn't true (given the business of the vested interests in the case).
It is a fact that death certificates are not issued by the Emergency department when a person has died from injuries sustained in a car crash. The Coroner has to examine and determine what caused the death, to ensure no negligence by hospital. Time of death is recorded.
All tubes and drips remain in the body till the coroner removes them.
No facts have been offered.
What facts. Don't be so lazy if you want facts got to Andrew Wommack and get them.
Do your own research. You are the one in doubt.
You've yet to provide convincing evidence of the death, since if he wasn't dead then he wasn't resurrected.
He is alive... What other proof is there? Go to Andrew Wommack and the hospital if you want to have it confirmed. Truth is your too frightened and using this bumph above as an excuse because you know the hospital and Andrew Wommack will confirm it. Who is really crying wolf.
One answer is that in the absence of documentation this claim may be false.
Well you have been told where to look. But we know your too scared and will keep making excuses...
When the death occurs in hospital it does, as I noted earlier. Rigor can begin after just a couple of hours so the examination of the body would be done fairly promptly - rigor starts first in the eyelids, jaw and neck and examination of the pupils is one of the key indicators of clinical death.
Rigor is affected by temperature and even if the person attacked or exercising at time of death. Peter Wommack was in a car accident and had died from his injuries.
Rigor usually sets in within 1-3 hours he had been dead over 4 hours. It usually is gone within 24 hours.
Wrong - the certification of death requires a qualified medical practitioner, and in the UK it requires two separate examinations if a cremation is planned.
Actually when it is an expected death at home then the gp does not need to attend on death.
A different doctor attends at expected death and signs a document allowing the person to get a death certificate and also call the funeral directors the same day/night.
It happened with my grandmother when she died at home and we were caring for her.
As it was an expected death the GP was not required to return an a separate doctor attended after he death and gave us the necessary paper to register her death. The funeral directors came the same night and prepared her. Coming back the next morning as it was late. Leaving us time to be with her.
This doesn't sound remotely credible - bodies don't get into mortuaries unless death has been properly certified, and if they did then that would be issue worthy of investigation.
Once a person dies in ER after an accident or anything. The body is removed to morgue for the coroner to do his work, But Andrew Wommack does not live in England, had you done any real research you would have known that. In fact your replies show you have NO idea who he is or where he comes from. TYPICAL.
So, where is the death certificate - since without it this story is exactly that: a story, and since you are championing it then we should expect you to present the essential details.
Did you get the information from a site because the hospitals don't work as you have said.
I know as my sister died from a brain brain hemorrhage she was a child and the diagnosis had been made before surgery and so her death did not require an autopsy he cause was known.
No certificate was given to us that day. The surgeon asked if he could reopen her head wound to see if they could learn anything which might help someone in the future. My mum allowed this to happen.
No two doctors needs to give us the paper to collect a death certificate.
Some times real life experiences give us more insight to hospital workings than a small experience of working in the NHS.
-
He is alive... What other proof is there?
Might suggest that he wasn't dead in the first place.
By the way, you are getting confused between the certification of the death and the subsequent registration of the death.
-
Might suggest that he wasn't dead in the first place.
It is possible that this was a sad case of misdiagnosis of death by the medical staff.
The 'deceased' would have been put in the morgue.
The distraught parent, believing his son to be dead, was amazed and mightily relieved when he 'awoke'/ 'came back'.
Given the fathers background, he attributed this as a 'miracle', in the biblical sense.
Now - I just need some one, anyone, to prove that the above is not correct (cough ::))
ps
People arising from the dead Misdiagnoses of death - is not as uncommon as one might think!
https://www.guidelinesinpractice.co.uk/out_of_hours_hammond_jan01
-
Sassy: Peter Wommack and the hospital have the evidence. See them.
Can't find it anywhere! Btw Peter Wommack's name is Jonathan Peter Wommack though he is known as "Peter".
If I could find the online records I would be glad.
Is he even still alive now?
Just seen Gordon's post and what he says is possible. In which case the hospital staff would be reluctant to speak or publish anything about it.
-
Might suggest that he wasn't dead in the first place.
By the way, you are getting confused between the certification of the death and the subsequent registration of the death.
GORDON SAID:
So you'll have a link to the death certificate
You said clearly a link to the death certificate.
Gordon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9810
View Profile Personal Message (Online)
Re: Why bother ringing 911?
« Reply #136 on: Today at 01:57:04 PM »
Quote from: Sassy on Today at 01:14:01 PM
The hospital staff and doctors.
So you'll have a link to the death certificate, since these are public records. In addition, in the days of modern medicine, and assuming there is a death certificate, there will then be the investigation of the wrongly issued death certificate.
Too late to move the goal post. I was never confused I was replying to what you actuially said.
-
I doubt we'd find a link to a death certificate on someone who lived.
We could however find records of his inpatient stay, his treatment, his falling into unconsciousness/death and subsequent revival, verified by the medical staff. It cannot be confidential as Andrew Wommack talks about it so - where is it?
Some of the sites giving details about J Peter Wommack are scrambled, or you get something completely unassociated with Wommack.
There must be people, unrelated to the Wommacks, who were there and are prepared to give testimony to the event.
The wall of silence speaks volumes.
-
Too late to move the goal post. I was never confused I was replying to what you actuially said.
Pay attention: the death certificate which will include details of the person, the qualified medic who is certifying the death and related details (time, date etc) and the cause of death: the death certificate, without which there is no evidence this chap was ever dead.
Now, since you brought up this case, please provide a link to the death certificate. If you can't then we can assume the story is nonsense.
-
I doubt we'd find a link to a death certificate on someone who lived.
We could however find records of his inpatient stay, his treatment, his falling into unconsciousness/death and subsequent revival, verified by the medical staff. It cannot be confidential as Andrew Wommack talks about it so - where is it?
Some of the sites giving details about J Peter Wommack are scrambled, or you get something completely unassociated with Wommack.
There must be people, unrelated to the Wommacks, who were there and are prepared to give testimony to the event.
The wall of silence speaks volumes.
It does indeed.
-
Pay attention: the death certificate which will include details of the person, the qualified medic who is certifying the death and related details (time, date etc) and the cause of death: the death certificate, without which there is no evidence this chap was ever dead.
Now, since you brought up this case, please provide a link to the death certificate. If you can't then we can assume the story is nonsense.
You pay attention. I told you the death certificate IS NOT ISSUED AT THE DAY OF DEATH.
He was raised to life within 24 hours of his death. That does not prove anything the medical records which record the time of death is what you need to go look for,
Go see Andrew Wommack and the hospital it is your search NOT MINE.
-
Not really. I am not the one doubting Andrew Wommacks word. So if you doubt then you need the reassurance not me. If you thought evidence existed to disprove what happened we both know nothing would stop you looking for it.
As I previously said... you are the one who needs the proof not I. I did my research.
If you were interested in the truth or had ever searched for truth you would know where to look.
-
Let's get back to useless parents feeding their children to prying gorillas please. We've exhausted Andrew Wommack and his family. To think, I'd never heard of him before this thread!
-
You pay attention. I told you the death certificate IS NOT ISSUED AT THE DAY OF DEATH.
He was raised to life within 24 hours of his death. That does not prove anything the medical records which record the time of death is what you need to go look for,
Go see Andrew Wommack and the hospital it is your search NOT MINE.
In other words this guy was never declared dead by a qualified clinician: therefore claims he was dead have no supporting evidence whatsoever. I can resurrect people who aren't yet dead, and so can you for that matter.
By the way you are wrong about the issuing of death certificate since they can be provided as soon as completed by the medic doing the certifying.
-
http://tinyurl.com/zhqyzq9
Moderator: long URL replaced.
-
Not really. I am not the one doubting Andrew Wommacks word. So if you doubt then you need the reassurance not me. If you thought evidence existed to disprove what happened we both know nothing would stop you looking for it.
Well you should be doubting it BIG TIME!
-
Whilst it is conceivable Jesus was crucified as he had made so many enemies, the resurrection story has no credibility to it whatsoever.
Translation: "I don't believe in the resurrection". Millions of people seem to find it perfectly credible, and many of them are highly intelligent.
-
Translation: "I don't believe in the resurrection". Millions of people seem to find it perfectly credible, and many of them are highly intelligent.
. . . in all other respects!
-
In other words this guy was never declared dead by a qualified clinician:
He was declared dead and sent off to the morgue. Are you really going to try and hide your blunder by thinking you can make that statement and not look stupid? :o ::)
therefore claims he was dead have no supporting evidence whatsoever.
The doctors signed the papers to send him to the morgue and pronounce him dead. DEATH CERTIFICATES ARE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY OFFICE NOT THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN WHO ONLY SIGNS AND SENDS THE BODY TO MORGUE AND CORONER..
You make yourself look more stupid if you prolong the argument because you cannot admit you got it wrong.
I can resurrect people who aren't yet dead, and so can you for that matter.
He was dead.He was in the morgue and wearing toe tag in CANADA.
When his Father asked to see his SONS DEAD BODY he was took the morgue and he by the power of God resurrected him... It is easy it is just you and your refusal to accept facts.
You won't look or you already did and did not like finding it is true.
By the way you are wrong about the issuing of death certificate since they can be provided as soon as completed by the medic doing the certifying.
Not wrong at all... ONLY AN EXPECTED DEATH GETS A CERTIFICATE BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO REGISTER THE DEATH. THE CORONER IS NOT INVOLVED IN AN EXPECTED DEATH.
The funeral director can collect a body immediately.
The death of someone in an hospital from an accident or unexpected has to go to the coroner for the actual cause of death to be determined and an official register entry of cause of death.
Now everyone knows you know absolutely NOTHING about correct procedure from an unexpected death or accidental death as opposed to an expected death.You got it wrong accept it.
-
Sassy, think about it ... Please!
If anyone in the world had resurrected a truly dead body, it would be headline news on every TV and radio station in the world and all over every newspaper! It would make Brexit look like a flower show report!
It certainly wouldn't be hidden away on a religious conman's own website!
-
He was declared dead and sent off to the morgue.
Being declared dead and actually being dead are two very different things.
Medical staff can and do get this wrong sometimes.
Look up Lazarus syndrome for some examples where this has happened.
They obviously got it wrong in this instance.
And nobody can prove that they didn't get it wrong.
-
He was declared dead and sent off to the morgue. Are you really going to try and hide your blunder by thinking you can make that statement and not look stupid? :o ::)
The doctors signed the papers to send him to the morgue and pronounce him dead. DEATH CERTIFICATES ARE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY OFFICE NOT THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN WHO ONLY SIGNS AND SENDS THE BODY TO MORGUE AND CORONER..
You make yourself look more stupid if you prolong the argument because you cannot admit you got it wrong.
He was dead.He was in the morgue and wearing toe tag in CANADA.
When his Father asked to see his SONS DEAD BODY he was took the morgue and he by the power of God resurrected him... It is easy it is just you and your refusal to accept facts.
You won't look or you already did and did not like finding it is true.
Not wrong at all... ONLY AN EXPECTED DEATH GETS A CERTIFICATE BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO REGISTER THE DEATH. THE CORONER IS NOT INVOLVED IN AN EXPECTED DEATH.
The funeral director can collect a body immediately.
The death of someone in an hospital from an accident or unexpected has to go to the coroner for the actual cause of death to be determined and an official register entry of cause of death.
Now everyone knows you know absolutely NOTHING about correct procedure from an unexpected death or accidental death as opposed to an expected death.You got it wrong accept it.
The doctors got it wrong if you are really dead you don't resurrect!
-
Now everyone knows you know absolutely NOTHING about correct procedure from an unexpected death or accidental death as opposed to an expected death.You got it wrong accept it.
In most cases the death certification will be provided by medical practitioners who knew or treated the deceased, since it involves providing details on the cause of death and the person certifying the death. Where the cause is not immediately known, where the death is unexpected or relates to traumatic events, then the death certificate may be not be issued immediately until the cause is established, such as where a postmortem examination is mandatory.
You are still confusing medical certification that death has occurred, which is a prerequisite for the death to be registered, with the documents provided by the registration process. The term 'death certificate' is used colloquially to refer to the latter, which includes details of the cause of death etc, but this is only issued on production of the initial medical certification of death.
The regulations affecting Scotland make this distinction clear: http://tinyurl.com/zl6m5nk
1.2 The Functions of Death Certification
1.2.1 Death certification serves a number of functions. A Medical Certificate of
Cause of Death (Form 11 or “MCCD”), provided to the best of the medical
practitioner’s knowledge and belief, is a statutory requirement set out within the
Registration of Births, Deaths andMarriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (“the1965 Act”) of
any registered medical practitioner who was in attendance to the deceased during
their last illness. It provides a permanent legal record of the fact of death and
enables the family to register the death and arrange disposal of the body.
1.2.2 When a death is registered, the person reporting the death (“the informant”) is
given the Certificate of Registration of Death (Form 14 or “death certificate”), which
includes information given by the certifying doctor. This allows the funeral to go
ahead and the informant to settle the deceased’s estate. It also provides the
informant with their own permanent record of how, when and why their relative died.
This can contribute to information about family medical history, which may be
important for their own health and that of future generations.
So, going back to the Wommack claims - where is the formal documentation confirming death had occurred?
-
Claims that people have come back from the dead are made very shortly after someone has supposedly died. It would be more interesting to meet someone who has been verifiably dead and disposed of by cremation, or burial, and who resurrects a few months or years later.
Isn't it strange that those who claim to have arisen from the dead don't make headline news?
-
Sassy, is there any evidence for the Wommack resurrection other than Andrew Wommack saying it happened? If so what and where is it please?
-
Sassy, think about it ... Please!
If anyone in the world had resurrected a truly dead body, it would be headline news on every TV and radio station in the world and all over every newspaper! It would make Brexit look like a flower show report!
It certainly wouldn't be hidden away on a religious conman's own website!
AGAIN... IT HAPPENED WITH CHRIST IN HIS TIME.
He raised Lazarus and today it is still talked about...
Does nothing to make you believe it was true though witnessed by many.
JESUS CHRIST... rose from the dead but 2,000 years on despite miracles and even others raised from the dead.
No one believes it...
King James Bible
But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.
You see for centuries people have been brought back from the dead.
People have been cured by the power of God in Jesus Name.
The truth is as Abraham told Dives...
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Not you or anyone would be persuaded by someone rising from the dead. But here they won't even look for the truth.
In this life we are called to know and believe in the truth of Jesus Christ being the Son of God and dying so we might know God.
But there is also the fact one day this world will be so evil your freedom to choose will be removed by Satan having been forced to make the wrong choice freely.
You can either think like Satan or think like God. Rebellion against truth is SATANS way he thought his own way better.
The cause of men dying spiritually is down to Satan as will be the physical death brought in by Adam.
911 can't save those who are spiritually dead or dying. :(
-
Just because something less than credible is featured in the Bible doesn't mean it is true, as there is no means of verifying it.
-
Sasy, is there any evidence for the Wommack resurrection other than Andrew Wommack saying it happened? If so what and where is it please?
Hi Maeght,
Have you been to his site or the hospitals site?
You see you cannot make claims where hospitals are concerned if not true.
What you must not do, neither must others is place anyones faith as relying solely on these things.
My prayer is that God will always guide me into reliance on him and his words alone through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Mans faith cannot rely on the actions of others or other men in general. It must rely on God the source of all truth and the way in which he has given us his truth. Faith should be built upon solid rock foundations. God and his words which have it's source in man through the Holy Spirit. The Messiah Jesus Christ gave the final truth but even he declared his words were Spirit and they were life.
Faith is built on personal relationships with God and Christ forged in truth by the power and presence of Gods Holy Spirit.
Never rely on what others have done or said, always rely simply on God and his power and presence.
Each person requires a living faith with their God based on his truth. Full reliance on God in all things.
You too must search for your own evidence and decide what if any difference that evidence will make to yourself.
You are important and you need to know the measure of what you learn and how you will choose to apply it.
:)
-
Sass, if that guy had been really arisen from the dead it would have been headline news all other the planet, it wasn't. It is a less than credible claim by a guy who is a scam merchant if his web site is anything to go by!
-
Hi Maeght,
Have you been to his site or the hospitals site?
I have seen the claims on his website but not found anything to support his claims elsewhere - which is why I asked the question. If you could say where this supporting evidence is (where the hospital gives its account of this for example)m this would help everyone.
You see you cannot make claims where hospitals are concerned if not true.
Why not?
What you must not do, neither must others is place anyones faith as relying solely on these things.
I've never suggested that - but if people put such things forward as evidence to support their beliefs they must accept people questioning that evidence.
My prayer is that God will always guide me into reliance on him and his words alone through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Mans faith cannot rely on the actions of others or other men in general. It must rely on God the source of all truth and the way in which he has given us his truth. Faith should be built upon solid rock foundations. God and his words which have it's source in man through the Holy Spirit. The Messiah Jesus Christ gave the final truth but even he declared his words were Spirit and they were life.
Faith is built on personal relationships with God and Christ forged in truth by the power and presence of Gods Holy Spirit.
Okay.
Never rely on what others have done or said, always rely simply on God and his power and presence.
Doesn't that also apply to claims such as this? Don't rely on what someone claims happened?
Each person requires a living faith with their God based on his truth. Full reliance on God in all things.
Not each person - only those who believe in God.
You too must search for your own evidence and decide what if any difference that evidence will make to yourself.
If someone says there is evidence for something then it is only reasonable to ask where that is.
You are important and you need to know the measure of what you learn and how you will choose to apply it.
:)
Okay.
In summary, you have a faith and tend therefore to accept claims such as the one being discussed. Others without faith will question these claims. If you want such claims to encourage people of no faith to search and develop a faith then surely you need to present the evidence for the authenticity of the claims. If that is not what you intend then why present them at all?
-
I doubt there is any evidence for the claims Wommack makes about his son. An example of a healing that is documented is that of Dorothy Kerin, who as a young woman was on her deathbed with TB, and suddenly got up, went to the kitchen and started eating again. Before long she was fully fit. Her doctor verified that the condition she was in beforehand was terminal - I think possibly in a coma -, and it was reported in the newspapers. So sure was she that God had healed her that she set up a Christian nursing home, which expanded and is going strong today.
Edit: this is a more accurate description of what happened:
http://www.the-new-way.org/testimonies/guar_064_a_girl_miracle_cure.html
-
So why should god heal her yet let children die, for instance?
-
I doubt there is any evidence for the claims Wommack makes about his son. An example of a healing that is documented is that of Dorothy Kerin, who as a young woman was on her deathbed with TB, and suddenly got up, went to the kitchen and started eating again. Before long she was fully fit. Her doctor verified that the condition she was in beforehand was terminal - I think possibly in a coma -, and it was reported in the newspapers. So sure was she that God had healed her that she set up a Christian nursing home, which expanded and is going strong today.
Edit: this is a more accurate description of what happened:
http://www.the-new-way.org/testimonies/guar_064_a_girl_miracle_cure.html
This was a report of an incident over a hundred years ago, when medical science was in its infancy. That a GP in those days had misdiagnosed some other ailment as TB isn't surprising, but even if this girl actually did have that terrible disease, she wasn't dead, so had never been resurrected.
That she put her 'cure' down to God is even less surprising, when you and Sassy do it for every unknown 'miracle'. It's strange how you never blame God for the opposite happening ... an apparently perfectly healthy child/adult dropping dead.
When a plane crashes, killing 200 people, all praying like mad to survive ... one crawls out and tells everyone how good God is for answering his/her prayer!
Ludicrous!
-
Here's an interesting article on diagnosis of death: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19968625
-
You see for centuries people have been brought back from the dead.
Being thought to be dead and actually being dead are two very different things.
People especially non-professionals (but professionals are not excluded) can and do get this wrong sometimes.
They obviously got it wrong in those instances.
And you cannot prove that they didn't get it wrong.
-
This was a report of an incident over a hundred years ago, when medical science was in its infancy. That a GP in those days had misdiagnosed some other ailment as TB isn't surprising, but even if this girl actually did have that terrible disease, she wasn't dead, so had never been resurrected.
I've found the following info:
1912: health deteriorated at age 12 after death of her father.
Diphtheria three years later.
Not able to walk or eat solid food for five years.
Diagnosis of tubercular meningitis, tubercular peritonitis (depending on source) and diabetes.
Blindness and deafness caused by the above. Also hemorrhaging.
Body emaciated. Long periods of unconsciousness, pain while conscious.
No pulse detected for eight minutes before recovery (clinical death).
After waking up:
Able to get out of bed unassisted and walk down two flights of stairs.
Able to eat solid food.
Body 'plump and covered with flesh' next day.
-
So why should god heal her yet let children die, for instance?
She reported that an angel had appeared to her and told her she was well. Also she reports being given instructions to heal the sick. So a definite purpose for her healing.
She eventually died in 1963 though. We will all die, because of the Fall.
-
She reported that an angel had appeared to her and told her she was well. Also she reports being given instructions to heal the sick. So a definite purpose for her healing.
She eventually died in 1963 though. We will all die, because of the Fall.
I thought they were OK for a post-punk band. Are you sure you're not confusing the Fall with the Cure?
-
She reported that an angel had appeared to her and told her she was well. Also she reports being given instructions to heal the sick. So a definite purpose for her healing.
She eventually died in 1963 though. We will all die, because of the Fall.
If God saved her why would he need her to heal the sick ongoing?
-
If God saved her why would he need her to heal the sick ongoing?
As in, why not just heal other people directly? I'm not sure. I do know that her ministry involved what is called the laying on of hands, where she would pray for someone while laying hands on them. I suppose she would have said it was similar to when Jesus gave his disciples authority to heal sickness. That was all t do with announcing the good news of the kingdom of God, and demonstrating that he is the saviour.
-
As in, why not just heal other people directly? I'm not sure. I do know that her ministry involved what is called the laying on of hands, where she would pray for someone while laying hands on them. I suppose she would have said it was similar to when Jesus gave his disciples authority to heal sickness. That was all t do with announcing the good news of the kingdom of God, and demonstrating that he is the saviour.
I understand she set up a number of hospitals which looked at the holistic approach to healing as well as 'Christian Healing' - but not sure exactly what the latter involved. If someone prays to be healed why do they need an intermediary and why would that be more effective in terms of announcing the good news than simply direct healing by God?
Do you see why someone who has no belief in God would see all this as humans assigning a divine cause to a natural process? We know that people do recover from illnesses which doctors have considered to be fatal, we know that people respond to the holistic approach and can certainly feel better at least if they think they are being healed, but although there are many stories and claims of miraculous healing there are very few cases, if any, with independent supporting evidence of any kind, so it comes down to belief in the end of the day.
-
I understand she set up a number of hospitals which looked at the holistic approach to healing as well as 'Christian Healing' - but not sure exactly what the latter involved. If someone prays to be healed why do they need an intermediary and why would that be more effective in terms of announcing the good news than simply direct healing by God?
Do you see why someone who has no belief in God would see all this as humans assigning a divine cause to a natural process? We know that people do recover from illnesses which doctors have considered to be fatal, we know that people respond to the holistic approach and can certainly feel better at least if they think they are being healed, but although there are many stories and claims of miraculous healing there are very few cases, if any, with independent supporting evidence of any kind, so it comes down to belief in the end of the day.
I'd start by quoting James 5:13-16.
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
-
I'd start by quoting James 5:13-16.
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
Okay .... tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that say that if you pray that God will heal directly rather than needing an intermediary?
I'm not really sure how quoting the bible helps answer my other question though.
-
Okay .... tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that say that if you pray that God will heal directly rather than needing an intermediary?
I'm not really sure how quoting the bible helps answer my other question though.
I think it's saying that if you pray for a sick person, with faith, God will heal them. So the person who prays for the sick person is the intermediary.
Re: your other question, yes, I do see why someone who has no belief in God would see all this as humans assigning a divine cause to a natural process. But if you believe in God, especially the biblical God who has revealed himself, then it's a different matter because he's in control.
We know that people do recover from illnesses which doctors have considered to be fatal, we know that people respond to the holistic approach and can certainly feel better at least if they think they are being healed, but although there are many stories and claims of miraculous healing there are very few cases, if any, with independent supporting evidence of any kind, so it comes down to belief in the end of the day.
Just one well-evidenced miraculous healing would be enough to prove a divine cause for that particular case.
-
Okay .... tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that say that if you pray that God will heal directly rather than needing an intermediary?
Aren't the person/people praying and the elders they are encouraged to call acting on God's behalf? Not quite sure where you get the idea of 'diect healing' from, as far as the passage from James is concerned.
-
Do you see why someone who has no belief in God would see all this as humans assigning a divine cause to a natural process? We know that people do recover from illnesses which doctors have considered to be fatal, we know that people respond to the holistic approach and can certainly feel better at least if they think they are being healed, but although there are many stories and claims of miraculous healing there are very few cases, if any, with independent supporting evidence of any kind, so it comes down to belief in the end of the day.
Yes, it does come down to belief at the end of the day, but then so does so much of real life. Even within the realm of science. I'd probably go as far as to say that all of life is based on belief.
-
I think it's saying that if you pray for a sick person, with faith, God will heal them. So the person who prays for the sick person is the intermediary.
Re reading it - it does seem to say that praying for others can leading to God healing. But the healing process mentioned for this woman referred to the 'laying on of hands' so slightly different. Why does it need other people to pray for someone for them to be healed though?
-
Yes, it does come down to belief at the end of the day, but then so does so much of real life. Even within the realm of science. I'd probably go as far as to say that all of life is based on belief.
Depends on what you mean by belief really. If you would say that accepting that something which is well attested and measured by external means is likely to happen routinely then everything is a belief e.g. that the sun will rise in the morning, if I drop something it will fall to the ground etc. Are those beliefs? I don't really see an equivalence between religious beliefs and the realm of science - can you give examples of equivalent beliefs in science?
-
The point about it being down to belief though comes from the way that such claims are presented as facts by certain people and used as evidence of the divine, when really it is people who have a religious belief who see these as being true events based on personal testimony only because it agrees with their preexisting beliefs. Because people have a faith they are more likely to accept such claims as being true, if you have no faith you are unlikely too. Just one well-evidenced miraculous healing would be evidence for a divine cause for that particular case but not really proof. Science doesn't do proofs. The evidence cannot just be personal claims or testimony however. There would need to be a basis of what can occur without prayer etc as a baseline too which would require a lot of statistical analysis. Is there a well scientifically evidenced case of healing which could not possibly be natural?
-
Re reading it - it does seem to say that praying for others can leading to God healing.
With the James passage, we should not take it to mean that it is the same today. The miracles performed by Jesus and the apostles were apparently a temporary sign given so that they would know he was sent from God.
I think the ministry of Dorothy Kerin was maybe a unique one, in that she was healed miraculously; and in that she received a vision in which she was called to heal others. It seems it was more to do with the holistic approach to healing that you mentioned: body, mind and spirit. I think at the hospital/chapel now they are aware that the miracles attributed to the early church were not intended to be ongoing, and that a person can experience what they call 'healing and wholeness' while not necessarily being free from a disease.
But the healing process mentioned for this woman referred to the 'laying on of hands' so slightly different. Why does it need other people to pray for someone for them to be healed though?
I think the principle is that in asking for prayer, a sick person displays his faith, and in confessing sin shows he has humbled himself. Since sin and guilt can be a factor in illness, that aspect of it is then dealt with through the others praying for him.
-
To suggest 'sin' has anything to do with illness is RIDICULOUS! A member of my extended family was told his mental illness was caused by his 'sin', and he would be cured if he repented. He was so upset he tried to top himself!
-
With the James passage, we should not take it to mean that it is the same today. The miracles performed by Jesus and the apostles were apparently a temporary sign given so that they would know he was sent from God.
Okay.
I think the ministry of Dorothy Kerin was maybe a unique one, in that she was healed miraculously;
She recovered.
... and in that she received a vision in which she was called to heal others.
She claimed.
It seems it was more to do with the holistic approach to healing that you mentioned: body, mind and spirit.
Indeed. And the hospitals set up continue in the approach today.
I think at the hospital/chapel now they are aware that the miracles attributed to the early church were not intended to be ongoing, and that a person can experience what they call 'healing and wholeness' while not necessarily being free from a disease.
Right. Not really healing then.
I think the principle is that in asking for prayer, a sick person displays his faith, and in confessing sin shows he has humbled himself. Since sin and guilt can be a factor in illness, that aspect of it is then dealt with through the others praying for him.
If a person prays themselves wouldn't this display faith just as much? Suggesting sin is a factor in illness is not something I could consider.
-
Hi Maeght
As an example of sin causing illness; what about staying on the internet for too long and getting a slipped disc because of it?
You could of course say this is better described simply as foolishness. I think that's the kind of thing James is suggesting one could confess to.
I'm not sure whether 'no detectable pulse for eight minutes' actually indicates clinical death. There is no mention of her stopping breathing. But it is clear that her body had some kind of kick start, and if she did have a vision, maybe she had fought off the infection but this was not apparent to the observers.
-
Hi Maeght
As an example of sin causing illness; what about staying on the internet for too long and getting a slipped disc because of it?
You could of course say this is better described simply as foolishness. I think that's the kind of thing James is suggesting one could confess to.
I'm not sure whether 'no detectable pulse for eight minutes' actually indicates clinical death. There is no mention of her stopping breathing. But it is clear that her body had some kind of kick start, and if she did have a vision, maybe she had fought off the infection but this was not apparent to the observers.
How could staying on the Internet too long be a 'sin', for pity's sake? How on earth does one get a slipped disc by doing so?
-
Posture problems floo. I don't know about a slipped disc specifically but people do experience quite severe musculo-skeletal problems if they spend a large amount of time in front of a computer, eg working. Couple that with talking on the 'phone, held between side of face and shoulder while you type, and you could end up quite disabled, at least for a while. It's very common.
The traditional understanding regarding the correlation between sin and illness is that, at the fall, man allowed sin into the world after which all the bad stuff poured in, illness being part of it, not that anyone is ill as a direct result of their own sin (though that could be the case in some instances).
-
Hi Maeght
As an example of sin causing illness; what about staying on the internet for too long and getting a slipped disc because of it?
You could of course say this is better described simply as foolishness. I think that's the kind of thing James is suggesting one could confess to.
I'm not sure whether 'no detectable pulse for eight minutes' actually indicates clinical death. There is no mention of her stopping breathing. But it is clear that her body had some kind of kick start, and if she did have a vision, maybe she had fought off the infection but this was not apparent to the observers.
Hi Spud,
How long is 'too long' for it to be considered a sin? Sorry, but that doesn't sound a very convincing example.
Who didn't have a detectable pulse for eight minutes?
-
She recovered.
So, was this something to do with the medical care she was given? Or was it something that occurred with no scientific explanation? Has any medic investigated the circumstances to see whether scientific medicine could heal her, if she was to present to a doctor today?
Right. Not really healing then.
Why 'not really healing then'? Are you saying that 'healing' has necessarily to be 1) merely physical and 2) total? What about those who have untreatable conditions and are, understandably, fearful of the future. If that fear is overcome, isn't that healing?
If a person prays themselves wouldn't this display faith just as much? Suggesting sin is a factor in illness is not something I could consider.
It might well be worth your rethinking your position, then, Maeght. What about the driver who is driving at, say, 60mph in a built-up area where the speed limit is 30, perhaps even 20; loses control of the car and has an accident causing serious injury to themself. After a while, their injuries lead to kidney failure. Are you honestly suggesting that 'sin' (aka wrongdoing) isn't a factor in that illness?
Or, what about the child who develops lung cancer as a result of living with and inhaling the exhalations of two heavy smoker parents? Isn't the condition tied to the 'sin' of those parents - especially if they have been warned about the potential consequences by friends and medics and refused to act on that advice?
-
Hope,
Thanks for your input. The person in question is Dorothy Kerin. In 1912 she recovered from what was diagnosed as tuberculous meningitis, having lost her sight and hearing and been unable to walk for 5 years. She was near death, but 16 people witnessed her get up and walk downstairs, having suddenly recovered from all the symptoms. She set up Burrswood healing centre in the south east, having received instructions during a vision at the time of her recovery to heal the sick. If you google there is quite a bit about her, although I think the details are written down in books authored by her and her friends.
Maeght, it was her that had no detectable pulse for 8 minutes.
-
Hope,
Thanks for your input. The person in question is Dorothy Kerin. In 1912 she recovered from what was diagnosed as tuberculous meningitis, having lost her sight and hearing and been unable to walk for 5 years. She was near death, but 16 people witnessed her get up and walk downstairs, having suddenly recovered from all the symptoms. She set up Burrswood healing centre in the south east, having received instructions during a vision at the time of her recovery to heal the sick. If you google there is quite a bit about her, although I think the details are written down in books authored by her and her friends.
Maeght, it was her that had no detectable pulse for 8 minutes.
Hi Spud; have to admit to having never heard of her before this thread was under-way, but I googled her up before posting my last post. My questions were to Maeght, in the hope that she'd be able to provide a scientific/medical explanation of her 'recovery' - after all, by using that term, Maeght is clearly seeking to dismiss the idea of the miraculous.
-
How long is 'too long' for it to be considered a sin? Sorry, but that doesn't sound a very convincing example.
Long enough to feel pain and ignore it? I guess the joints most vulnerable computing injuries are in the neck. Perhaps a better example is smoking and lung disease. Or alcohol abuse and stomach ulcers
-
So, was this something to do with the medical care she was given? Or was it something that occurred with no scientific explanation? Has any medic investigated the circumstances to see whether scientific medicine could heal her, if she was to present to a doctor today?
I can't answer that. I pointed out earlier that for any case to be considered as not naturally possible would require a great deal of data and analysis which I don't think has been done.
Why 'not really healing then'? Are you saying that 'healing' has necessarily to be 1) merely physical and 2) total?
My understanding of the word healing is to mean restoration of health or recovery from illness or injury - and this appears to me to be the more common meaning amongst people who talk of God healing people - at least that seems to be what the TV evangelists mean - 'throw down your sticks and walk'. Healing can refer to easing of a condition is but is that what is claimed or meant when Christian healing is mentioned.
What about those who have untreatable conditions and are, understandably, fearful of the future. If that fear is overcome, isn't that healing?
I wouldn't probably use that term, no. Relief, yes but not healing. The case mentioned was a recovery from illness, not relief.
It might well be worth your rethinking your position, then, Maeght.
Always open to that.
What about the driver who is driving at, say, 60mph in a built-up area where the speed limit is 30, perhaps even 20; loses control of the car and has an accident causing serious injury to themself. After a while, their injuries lead to kidney failure. Are you honestly suggesting that 'sin' (aka wrongdoing) isn't a factor in that illness?
Is that what Spud meant? Doing something illegal and getting injured?
Or, what about the child who develops lung cancer as a result of living with and inhaling the exhalations of two heavy smoker parents? Isn't the condition tied to the 'sin' of those parents - especially if they have been warned about the potential consequences by friends and medics and refused to act on that advice?
Why are you saying 'sin' rather than sin? Is that because the examples you are giving aren't really what is usually meant by sin?
My questions were to Maeght, in the hope that she'd be able to provide a scientific/medical explanation of her 'recovery' - after all, by using that term, Maeght is clearly seeking to dismiss the idea of the miraculous.
I am dismissing nothing but nor am I accepting unsupported claims and stories as evidence of the divine. That Kerin recovered is a statement of fact. I have made no claim about it - whereas those who have described it as miraculous have. If think it was can you show that it was miraculous and not possibly natural? And I'm not a she!
-
Long enough to feel pain and ignore it? I guess the joints most vulnerable computing injuries are in the neck. Perhaps a better example is smoking and lung disease. Or alcohol abuse and stomach ulcers
That's how long it takes to cause pain. The dictionary definition of sin is 'an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law' - do the things you mention meat that definition?
-
Hope,
Thanks for your input. The person in question is Dorothy Kerin. In 1912 she recovered from what was diagnosed as tuberculous meningitis, having lost her sight and hearing and been unable to walk for 5 years. She was near death, but 16 people witnessed her get up and walk downstairs, having suddenly recovered from all the symptoms. She set up Burrswood healing centre in the south east, having received instructions during a vision at the time of her recovery to heal the sick. If you google there is quite a bit about her, although I think the details are written down in books authored by her and her friends.
Maeght, it was her that had no detectable pulse for 8 minutes.
Even if all those details are factual, it doesn't mean god was responsible, people do make unexpected recoveries from time to time.
-
To suggest 'sin' has anything to do with illness is RIDICULOUS! A member of my extended family was told his mental illness was caused by his 'sin', and he would be cured if he repented. He was so upset he tried to top himself!
Is he a Christian? If not, probably not a good idea to tell him that. If yes, maybe it was the way he was told it that upset him.
-
Is he a Christian? If not, probably not a good idea to tell him that. If yes, maybe it was the way he was told it that upset him.
He is a Christian, but it was still a load of crazy unsubstantiated garbage! The person who told upset him in that way was condemned by other Christians who also thought that statement stupid.
-
Even if all those details are factual, it doesn't mean god was responsible, people do make unexpected recoveries from time to time.
Yes, was reading about tuberculosis and its complications last night. So apparently the infection had spread to her intestine and meninges. Perhaps the thing that made people think it was miraculous is that afterwards there was no sign that she had suffered the lesions or symptoms. If you think about how a skin lesion takes time to heal, and that afterwards you still have a visible scar, it just seems difficult to believe that the tissue damage caused by Dorothy's condition would have disappeared overnight. The fact that it did is what amazed the doctors at the time.
-
He is a Christian, but it was still a load of crazy unsubstantiated garbage! The person who told upset him in that way was condemned by other Christians who also thought that statement stupid.
It'd be difficult to comment without knowing more about this.
-
Yes, was reading about tuberculosis and its complications last night. So apparently the infection had spread to her intestine and meninges. Perhaps the thing that made people think it was miraculous is that afterwards there was no sign that she had suffered the lesions or symptoms. If you think about how a skin lesion takes time to heal, and that afterwards you still have a visible scar, it just seems difficult to believe that the tissue damage caused by Dorothy's condition would have disappeared overnight. The fact that it did is what amazed the doctors at the time.
However amazing what has it got to do with a god which probably doesn't exist? As has been asked many times if god does exist, and did cure that woman, why the hell doesn't it cure everyone who is ill?
-
That's how long it takes to cause pain.
If you feel neck pain from sitting at the computer but keep on using it, that's what I mean. Or if you get stomach pain after drinking alcohol but go out the next night and drink more because you like feeling drunk.
However amazing what has it got to do with a god which probably doesn't exist? As has been asked many times if god does exist, and did cure that woman, why the hell doesn't it cure everyone who is ill?
'Probably'? Such certainty...
I said several posts back that God used Jesus' and the apostles' miracles as signs that Jesus was sent from God. This type of miracle was not intended to go on perpetually. That's Calvin's take on James 5:13-16 anyway. And it helps answer the OP.
-
If you feel neck pain from sitting at the computer but keep on using it, that's what I mean. Or if you get stomach pain after drinking alcohol but go out the next night and drink more because you like feeling drunk.
'Probably'? Such certainty...
I said several posts back that God used Jesus' and the apostles' miracles as signs that Jesus was sent from God. This type of miracle was not intended to go on perpetually. That's Calvin's take on James 5:13-16 anyway. And it helps answer the OP.
If you harm others through you own stupidity that is of course wrong. 'Sin' is a stupid little word as it often refers to things, which no decent person would describe as wrong, like homosexuality!
You have no evidence god exists let alone what it is supposed to have done or not done
-
However amazing what has it got to do with a god which probably doesn't exist? As has been asked many times if god does exist, and did cure that woman, why the hell doesn't it cure everyone who is ill?
What doesn't it have to do with a god that - in your opinion - 'probably doesn't exist' (do you actually have any evidence for that assertion?) but in others' opinion is concerned about every single human being, wants the very best for them - but also allows humans to experience the consequences of what they choose to do and believe.
-
What doesn't it have to do with a god that - in your opinion - 'probably doesn't exist' (do you actually have any evidence for that assertion?) but in others' opinion is concerned about every single human being, wants the very best for them - but also allows humans to experience the consequences of what they choose to do and believe.
Here we go again, you have NEVER put up any evidence, which can be verified that the less than credible Biblical god exists. It is as credible as fairies, elves, goblins etc. It is strange you don't ask people to provide evidence they don't exist either!!!!!
-
If you harm others through you own stupidity that is of course wrong. 'Sin' is a stupid little word as it often refers to things, which no decent person would describe as wrong, like homosexuality!
You have no evidence god exists let alone what it is supposed to have done or not done
Yet, several decent people do regard homosexuality as wrong, Floo - including some who are homosexual themselves.
As for the evidence you question, you have chosen to dismiss some of the evidence that has been presented - such as the healing of Dorothy Kerin on the grounds that this can't happen from a purely human way of thining. The problem is that you are using one set of undrstandings to dismiss a different set of understandings. A bit like using a chemical formula to prove or disprove a physics understanding.
-
Here we go again, you have NEVER put up any evidence, which can be verified that the less than credible Biblical god exists. It is as credible as fairies, elves, goblins etc. It is strange you don't ask people to provide evidence they don't exist either!!!!!
See my post immediately under this one. You dismiss things without showing any evidence for that dismissal. Simply doubting something doesn't disprove it.
-
Yet, several decent people do regard homosexuality as wrong, Floo - including some who are homosexual themselves.
Name them!
-
Yet, several decent people do regard homosexuality as wrong, Floo - including some who are homosexual themselves.
As for the evidence you question, you have chosen to dismiss some of the evidence that has been presented - such as the healing of Dorothy Kerin on the grounds that this can't happen from a purely human way of thining. The problem is that you are using one set of undrstandings to dismiss a different set of understandings. A bit like using a chemical formula to prove or disprove a physics understanding.
They are not decent if they regard homosexuality as wrong! It is very sad if a person regards their sexuality as wrong, no doubt it has been inbred in them though the unpleasant anti-gay mob. Oh I do hope Jesus was gay and had an enjoyable sex life, you cant prove he wasn't!
Why can't the body heal itself? It can and it does, with no input from any god. As I have said before so may times, if the sky fairy can heal people why doesn't it get its finger out and do so all the time instead of on a whim?
-
Oh I do hope Jesus was gay and had an enjoyable sex life, you can't prove he wasn't!
Considering the (so-called) fact that he roamed around with twelve blokes who shunned the company of women and who (allegedly) spoke of their love for him and (supposedly) didn't like the presence of Mary Magdelene much I would say that it was highly likely!
-
Considering the (so-called) fact that he roamed around with twelve blokes who shunned the company of women and who (allegedly) spoke of their love for him and (supposedly) didn't like the presence of Mary Magdelene much I would say that it was highly likely!
Evidence that they shunned the company of women, please, Owl.
-
Why can't the body heal itself? It can and it does, with no input from any god. As I have said before so may times, if the sky fairy can heal people why doesn't it get its finger out and do so all the time instead of on a whim?
Again, please provide evidence that the body 'can and ... does (heal itself), with no input from any god', Floo.
-
Gay or straight I hope he enjoyed consenting rumpy pumpy, LOL!
-
Again, please provide evidence that the body 'can and ... does (heal itself), with no input from any god', Floo.
We observe people get better all the time.
I have done it, and you will have too at some time.
What more do you need?
-
If you feel neck pain from sitting at the computer but keep on using it, that's what I mean. Or if you get stomach pain after drinking alcohol but go out the next night and drink more because you like feeling drunk.
Is that really sin though?
-
Maeght, it was her that had no detectable pulse for 8 minutes.
Where did that info come from Spud. I haven't seen mention of that in stuff I found.
-
If you harm others through you own stupidity that is of course wrong.
And harming oneself through stupidity is not wrong?
-
And harming oneself through stupidity is not wrong?
Daft but not wrong if unintentional. I have unintentionally put my life in danger many a time since I first drew breath. Kicking a live grenade (I didn't realise what it was) around like a football when I was ten endangered my life, even more so because I got the thrashing to end all thrashings from my parents!
-
Your parents exploded, floo!
-
Your parents exploded, floo!
Too right. My mother was worried about what people might have thought if I had been killed, it was ever thus! :D
-
Gordon Bennett, sounds like my mum. Everything was bad if it in some way reflected on her.
(Apropos of nothing, Gordon Bennett was a racing driver, a fast mover for his time. As he sped past, people would say, "That's Gordon Bennett!"! My mum thought it was 'common' to say "Gordon Bennett" ::) ).
-
Is that really sin though?
Yes, if you don't heed warnings about such stuff.
-
Yes, if you don't heed warnings about such stuff.
What is your definition of 'sin'?
-
Name them!
I know three, but am not going to name them.
-
Yes, if you don't heed warnings about such stuff.
Warnings from who? And I agree - what is your definition of sin?
-
Warnings from who? And I agree - what is your definition of sin?
Specifically, the cigarette packet, parents (in my case re: alcohol) and a university lecturer who talked about the effect of computers on necks.
Sin is ignoring the warning.
-
Specifically, the cigarette packet, parents (in my case re: alcohol) and a university lecturer who talked about the effect of computers on necks.
Sin is ignoring the warning.
That's not a definition of sin though - can you give your definition please?
-
I agree Maeght. What Spud is describing is at worst unwise, thoughtless behaviour but not sin which is an action, or ommission, with far more serious intent.
-
Evidence that they shunned the company of women, please, Owl.
Read your bible and tell me where there is anything about them enjoying the company of women once they started to follow Jesus!
-
Read your bible and tell me where there is anything about them enjoying the company of women once they started to follow Jesus!
- They visited the home of Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus), and would seem to have done so quite regularly;
- three Gospel passages refer to Peter's mother-in-law, suggesting that he was married;
- there are a number of women mentioned in the story of the Crucifixion. in view of the speed that this carried out, those women must have been accompanying Jesus and his disciples because they wouldn't have time to make it all the way from Galilee - which is were most of the disciples came from;
- Jesus made no attempt to stop women and children coming to talk to him;
That's just off the top of my head - without looking at any of the material. There are possibly more examples.
A bit of investigation later:
In 1 Corinthians 9:5, (! & 2 Corinthians are both generally regarded as part of the 'real' Pauline epistles) Paul asked the Corinthians whether he did not have the right to take a believing wife as was the case with “the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas [Peter].” From this, we can assume that Peter was not the only disciple to have a wife.
-
Name them!
Why? All I know is that several gay people have said that they regard their orientation to be wrong in the various reports that have done the rounds over the years. I woud have no idea whether you would actually know them.
-
Why? All I know is that several gay people have said that they regard their orientation to be wrong in the various reports that have done the rounds over the years. I woud have no idea whether you would actually know them.
Perhaps these reports are fictional?
-
- They visited the home of Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus), and would seem to have done so quite regularly;
- three Gospel passages refer to Peter's mother-in-law, suggesting that he was married;
- there are a number of women mentioned in the story of the Crucifixion. in view of the speed that this carried out, those women must have been accompanying Jesus and his disciples because they wouldn't have time to make it all the way from Galilee - which is were most of the disciples came from;
- Jesus made no attempt to stop women and children coming to talk to him;
That's just off the top of my head - without looking at any of the material. There are possibly more examples.
A bit of investigation later:
In 1 Corinthians 9:5, (! & 2 Corinthians are both generally regarded as part of the 'real' Pauline epistles) Paul asked the Corinthians whether he did not have the right to take a believing wife as was the case with “the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas [Peter].” From this, we can assume that Peter was not the only disciple to have a wife.
None of this can be taken as FACT! Even you admit that by the wording used (highlighted in red).
Oh, and as I was told many years ago in school - never, ever assume - it makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'!
-
Why? All I know is that several gay people have said that they regard their orientation to be wrong in the various reports that have done the rounds over the years. I woud have no idea whether you would actually know them.
Because I think that this is yet another one of your totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions. Either that or they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality so beloved of some Christian groups/sects.
It is of no consequence whatsoever if I know them or not - what is of consequence is whether YOU do! Which I sincerely doubt.
-
Specifically, the cigarette packet, parents (in my case re: alcohol) and a university lecturer who talked about the effect of computers on necks.
Sin is ignoring the warning.
I ask again what is your definition of 'sin'?
-
Because I think that this is yet another one of your totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions. Either that or they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality so beloved of some Christian groups/sects.
It is of no consequence whatsoever if I know them or not - what is of consequence is whether YOU do! Which I sincerely doubt.
You can hide behind the "totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions", or the "they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality" claims if you so wish, but the very existence of the latter category indicates that there are people who hold this position. I realise that you want everyone to believe that they can be whatever they wish to be - something that is increasingly being drilled into young people at school, and often very positively - but not all want to be forced to act in this way.
-
Good evening!
Owlswing, I too have read reports and interviews with people who believe that God somehow changed their sexual orientation. Also a couple of guys who believed that God taught them how to avoid temptation and went on to marry and have children. It was some years ago and I do not know their names though they didn't withhold names, but there was no-one of high profile (one was a television interview, an American chap. I remember his face very well and some of the things he said).
They seemed truthful and quite sincere in their beliefs. However we don't know what happened a few years down the line, which I know sounds very cynical but my experience of life has taught me that great changes of any kind do not always last; people revert to type especially under stress and show me the man or woman who has a stress free life.
The other possibility, or probability, is the person leading a double life and that happens a lot. Sometimes no-one finds ever finds out so they can have the best of both worlds but if it comes to light, there is a scandal. It's grossly unfair to the person they married and there have been countless cases of homosexuals (including clergy), marrying someone of the opposite sex, ultimately causing a lot of hurt which could have been avoided had they not tried to be what they are not.
All encouraged, nurtured even, by people telling them it is wrong to be gay!
I don't believe anyone can change their sexual orientation and there's no reason why they should. However all Hope said was he had heard of people who claimed they had, and so have I.
-
You can hide behind the "totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions", or the "they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality" claims if you so wish, but the very existence of the latter category indicates that there are people who hold this position. I realise that you want everyone to believe that they can be whatever they wish to be - something that is increasingly being drilled into young people at school, and often very positively - but not all want to be forced to act in this way.
To act in what way? Forced? By whom?
-
You can hide behind the "totally baseless assertions to "support" your opinions", or the "they are people who have been subjected to the totally discredited "cure" for homosexuality" claims if you so wish, but the very existence of the latter category indicates that there are people who hold this position. I realise that you want everyone to believe that they can be whatever they wish to be - something that is increasingly being drilled into young people at school, and often very positively - but not all want to be forced to act in this way.
It is sick disgusting that anyone could regard homosexuality as an illness in need of 'curing', when it is as normal as heterosexuality.
-
It is sick disgusting that anyone could regard homosexuality as an illness in need of 'curing', when it is as normal as heterosexuality.
Have I ever even suggested that it's "an illness in need of 'curing'"? Pretty well the only people I have seen referencing the idea are those who want to make out that the practice of homosexuality is not wrong. I have regularly noted that homosexuality, in much the same way as a tendency to bad temper is, is something that may be innate in some - perhaps all of us - but has to be acted upon before it can be judged to be right or wrong.
For homosexuality to be 'as normal as heterosexuality' 50% of the population would have to be one, 50% the other. It may, like left-handedness or short-sightedness, be natural, but that is not the same thing.
-
That's not a definition of sin though
But it was almost quite a good rap, no?
-
I agree Maeght. What Spud is describing is at worst unwise, thoughtless behaviour but not sin which is an action, or ommission, with far more serious intent.
In the anglican prayer of confession we say that we have sinned against God in thought, word and deed, through negligence, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.
-
Have I ever even suggested that it's "an illness in need of 'curing'"? Pretty well the only people I have seen referencing the idea are those who want to make out that the practice of homosexuality is not wrong. I have regularly noted that homosexuality, in much the same way as a tendency to bad temper is, is something that may be innate in some - perhaps all of us - but has to be acted upon before it can be judged to be right or wrong.
For homosexuality to be 'as normal as heterosexuality' 50% of the population would have to be one, 50% the other. It may, like left-handedness or short-sightedness, be natural, but that is not the same thing.
You have a perverted way of thinking on this topic Hope, which is very sad! So do you think being left handed is abnormal as in the bad old days? We should be living in much more enlightened times where the subject of homosexuality is concerned, but sadly there are still many sick bigots who see it as abnormal;, hopefully with gay marriage now legal, in years to come people will see it as normal and no big deal. What really gets me is the people who use the not so good book as an excuse for their bigotry, funny there is no record of Jesus condemning it. But as I have said many times he could have been gay.
-
In the anglican prayer of confession we say that we have sinned against God in thought, word and deed, through negligence, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.
It needs 'sinning' against and exterminating if it actually exists, and is as bad as the Bible portrays it as being.
-
In the anglican prayer of confession we say that we have sinned against God in thought, word and deed, through negligence, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.
I know that Spud, it is also said in the Catholic Church, it covers all eventualities. There certainly are "Sins of omission", if we knowingly don't bother to do something positive which may result in a serious problem for others, and if we are careless and know we are being careless but just don't care. We always have to careful.
-
You have a perverted way of thinking on this topic Hope, which is very sad! So do you think being left handed is abnormal as in the bad old days? We should be living in much more enlightened times where the subject of homosexuality is concerned, but sadly there are still many sick bigots who see it as abnormal;, hopefully with gay marriage now legal, in years to come people will see it as normal and no big deal. What really gets me is the people who use the not so good book as an excuse for their bigotry, funny there is no record of Jesus condemning it. But as I have said many times he could have been gay.
I agree entirely with you on this, Roses.
In ancient days when a tribe needed theirs to be bigger than their rival's, homosexuality would have been seen as counter-productive to that aim. In today's world of dangerous over-population, it should be welcomed not condemned.
This is the problem with people believing what was right thousands of years ago must still be right today.
Bigotry is the right word when they preach it on Internet forums.
-
I have not come across any children/young people who are "forced" into believing anything; no-one is encouraged to be gay, they are either are or they are not. However kids are encouraged to believe there is room for everyone and not be bothered if one of their fellow pupils has a different orientation to their self. I think that is a very good thing and eventually the snide remarks, taunting etc, which gay kids used to experience will completely disappear.
-
It needs 'sinning' against and exterminating if it actually exists, and is as bad as the Bible portrays it as being.
Actually we tell it we're truly sorry, but I'll also tell it it better watch out for a crazy lady called floo, at least then it has a fair chance of repenting ;)
-
Have I ever even suggested that it's "an illness in need of 'curing'"? Pretty well the only people I have seen referencing the idea are those who want to make out that the practice of homosexuality is not wrong. I have regularly noted that homosexuality, in much the same way as a tendency to bad temper is, is something that may be innate in some - perhaps all of us - but has to be acted upon before it can be judged to be right or wrong.
For homosexuality to be 'as normal as heterosexuality' 50% of the population would have to be one, 50% the other. It may, like left-handedness or short-sightedness, be natural, but that is not the same thing.
Don't you judge right handedness or short sightedness to be right or wrong?
-
For homosexuality to be 'as normal as heterosexuality' 50% of the population would have to be one, 50% the other.
So 'normal' is defined by the trait in question being found in at least 50% of the population, where traits that aren't seen in the majority aren't 'normal: says who?
It may, like left-handedness or short-sightedness, be natural, but that is not the same thing.
So, since about 10% of people have left hand dominance this isn't, according to what you say, 'normal' even if it is 'natural': so, how do you separate the 'natural' from the 'normal' since you seem to be making a distinction? Then you need to explain how you get from not 'normal' to 'wrong'
Your approach here seems to be as nuanced as the proverbial bull in a china shop!
-
I have not come across any children/young people who are "forced" into believing anything; no-one is encouraged to be gay, they are either are or they are not. However kids are encouraged to believe there is room for everyone and not be bothered if one of their fellow pupils has a different orientation to their self. I think that is a very good thing and eventually the snide remarks, taunting etc, which gay kids used to experience will completely disappear.
Lucky you! Being threatened with hell-fire as a kid if I didn't do the 'born again' bit wasn't pleasant. Sadly that nastiness is still being forced down kids throats as I know for a fact.
-
So 'normal' is defined by the trait in question being found in at least 50% of the population, where traits that aren't seen in the majority aren't 'normal: says who?
So, since about 10% of people have left hand dominance this isn't, according to what you say, 'normal' even if it is 'natural': so, how do you separate the 'natural' from the 'normal' since you seem to be making a distinction? Then you need to explain how you get from not 'normal' to 'wrong'
Your approach here seems to be as nuanced as the proverbial bull in a china shop!
As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten at school for being left handed. My uncle had to use his left hand as polio had caused his right arm to have very little movement! I write with my left hand, although I do everything else with my right. As a child an old man suggested my parents should punish me for writing with my left hand. That made me feel quite upset.
-
But it was almost quite a good rap, no?
No.
-
In the anglican prayer of confession we say that we have sinned against God in thought, word and deed, through negligence, through weakness and our own deliberate fault.
So sin can mean virtually anything in modern life. You learn something new everyday.
-
As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten at school for being left handed. My uncle had to use his left hand as polio had caused his right arm to have very little movement! I write with my left hand, although I do everything else with my right. As a child an old man suggested my parents should punish me for writing with my left hand. That made me feel quite upset.
Yes I remember left handers being told off in school and expected to use their right hand.
Sadly at the time teachers believed they were doing it in the interest of the child concerned as some tasks like using scissors or other tools are harder if you are left handed.
-
Lucky you! Being threatened with hell-fire as a kid if I didn't do the 'born again' bit wasn't pleasant. Sadly that nastiness is still being forced down kids throats as I know for a fact.
I was talking about nowadays, floo! We were all force fed a variety of stuff when we were kids (at home as well as school), but I honestly didn't know it happened now, thought it had been outlawed in school - can't answer for what some parents do.
-
I was talking about nowadays, floo! We were all force fed a variety of stuff when we were kids (at home as well as school), but I honestly didn't know it happened now, thought it had been outlawed in school - can't answer for what some parents do.
It might be outlawed at school but is still happening in the home and pentecostal churches!
-
I was talking about nowadays, floo! We were all force fed a variety of stuff when we were kids (at home as well as school), but I honestly didn't know it happened now, thought it had been outlawed in school - can't answer for what some parents do.
I can think of some parents who force feed their children with some of the most extreme and weird stuff that I can think of, and I'm not referring to anything in the religious area of life.
-
I can think of some parents who force feed their children with some of the most extreme and weird stuff that I can think of, and I'm not referring to anything in the religious area of life.
You can't get much weirder than insisting kids get 'saved' or go to hell, especially when there is not one shred of evidence to support that crazy belief!
-
You can't get much weirder than insisting kids get 'saved' or go to hell, especially when there is not one shred of evidence to support that crazy belief!
Well, I have seen really crazy things being taught to children - without having to touch the religious or political realms. For instance, the idea that if a parent really loves you, they will necessarily buy you everything you might possibly want, even if you don't really need it.
-
Very true, materialism is frequently forced on kids; they like it up to a point but if it is over the top, there's nothing to look forward to.
The opposite can also be true. I knew a couple, very nice indeed and reasonably well off, who felt so strongly that their kids should not expect too much that cost money, they would go to a cafe whilst out shopping and the children were allowed a snack or a drink, never both. They had twins who had one birthday present between them, same at Christmas! That was far too extreme.
You can't win.
-
Well, I have seen really crazy things being taught to children - without having to touch the religious or political realms. For instance, the idea that if a parent really loves you, they will necessarily buy you everything you might possibly want, even if you don't really need it.
Of course a lot of crazy things are taught to children, but using religion, of whatever faith, as a means of control is very unpleasant indeed, especially as it is only a belief with no evidence to substantiate it.
-
Of course a lot of crazy things are taught to children, but using religion, of whatever faith, as a means of control is very unpleasant indeed, especially as it is only a belief with no evidence to substantiate it.
But, as i've pointed out, it isn't the only area of life in which this can/does occur, and arguably there are many more serious abuses of the system than simply that of religious belief. I think that we all appreciate that you suffered horrendously as a child, but I'm not convinced that it was religion that was controlling your parents' attitudes. It may well have been that religion was used as a means of control by church leaders who were looking for compliant followers (and that spilled over into your parents' actions towards you). If it really was religion controlling everything, why didn't I - as a son of a clergyman - experience the same treatment.
Finally for now, and at the risk of repeating myself ad finituum, what or where is the evidence for your assertion that " it is only a belief with no evidence to substantiate it"?
-
However all Hope said was he had heard of people who claimed they had, and so have I.
No he did not - what he said was
several decent people do regard homosexuality as wrong, . . . including some who are homosexual themselves.
This is NOT saying that these people "claimed" anything - he is saying, as he usually says, that it is a fact, that these people regard their homosexuality as being wrong.
As always, when challenged to provide the evidence, we get evasion!
-
Finally for now, and at the risk of repeating myself ad finituum, (this shouild read ad infinitum) what or where is the evidence for your assertion that " it is only a belief with no evidence to substantiate it"?
Thr same place as your evidence for your assertion that it is not only a belief and that there is evidence to substantiate it!
-
But, as i've pointed out, it isn't the only area of life in which this can/does occur, and arguably there are many more serious abuses of the system than simply that of religious belief. I think that we all appreciate that you suffered horrendously as a child, but I'm not convinced that it was religion that was controlling your parents' attitudes. It may well have been that religion was used as a means of control by church leaders who were looking for compliant followers (and that spilled over into your parents' actions towards you). If it really was religion controlling everything, why didn't I - as a son of a clergyman - experience the same treatment.
Finally for now, and at the risk of repeating myself ad finituum, what or where is the evidence for your assertion that " it is only a belief with no evidence to substantiate it"?
Hope the thoroughly evil 'born again' dogma controlled their lives. They were scared their kids would wind up in hell if they didn't get 'saved'. I wish they had been moderate Christians, or better still atheists, that would have made life a whole lot easier. Their faith spoilt what should have been an idyllic childhood for my siblings and I. We had sun, sand, sea and a fairly comfortable lifestyle.
-
Owl: This is NOT saying that these people "claimed" anything - he is saying, as he usually says, that it is a fact, that these people regard their homosexuality as being wrong.
As previously stated, I too read and saw documentary about such people and as far as they were concerned, at the time, it was a fact. My cynicism about it doesn't alter the fact.
-
Owl: This is NOT saying that these people "claimed" anything - he is saying, as he usually says, that it is a fact, that these people regard their homosexuality as being wrong.
As previously stated, I too read and saw documentary about such people and as far as they were concerned, at the time, it was a fact. My cynicism about it doesn't alter the fact.
And where in the documentary were all those (a majority I would suggect) who do/did NOT think that their homosexuality is wrong?
Who made the documentary? What was their agenda in makng it?
A thousand to one on that it was some Chrisitan organisation's propaganda! Even an American Evangelical Right-wing Kill the Fags sect.
-
And where in the documentary were all those (a majority I would suggect) who do/did NOT think that their homosexuality is wrong?
Not quite sure what you are hoping to acheive by this statement, Owl. No-one, other than you, have referred to proportions or numbers.
Who made the documentary? What was their agenda in makng it?
A thousand to one on that it was some Chrisitan organisation's propaganda! Even an American Evangelical Right-wing Kill the Fags sect.
I saw a documentary produced either by ITV or Channel 4 several years ago, and have read newspaper reports (Guardian or Times, probably) that had been sponsored by Stonewall UK. Not sure what Brownie saw. Have to say that whilst I've read artiles written by Christian groups giving both POVs, I've never seen a documentary on the issue produced by a Christian group. That isn't to say that there aren't such things, just that I've never seen one either 'pro' or 'con'.
-
And where in the documentary were all those (a majority I would suggect) who do/did NOT think that their homosexuality is wrong?
Who made the documentary? What was their agenda in makng it?
A thousand to one on that it was some Chrisitan organisation's propaganda! Even an American Evangelical Right-wing Kill the Fags sect.
Oh no, Owlswing, nothing like that, I'd remember were that the case (I have actually seen a doc about Westboro', a sort of expose). The television documentary I saw was just made by....television documentary people I suppose. There was no agenda. It could easily have been about some other subject.
The interviews I read were in newspaper articles.
(There are plenty of other articles where people say quite the opposite, that attempts at 'treatment' or 're-orientation' did not work, in fact had very unpleasant effects.)
These are just reports about peoples' experiences as they view them at a particular time in their life. Follow up might be interesting.
-
And where in the documentary were all those (a majority I would suggect) who do/did NOT think that their homosexuality is wrong?
Who made the documentary? What was their agenda in makng it?
A thousand to one on that it was some Chrisitan organisation's propaganda! Even an American Evangelical Right-wing Kill the Fags sect.
Owlswing, I know I responded to this post earlier but a name came to mind today - Peter Ould. I googled him and came up with the article linked below, the beginning of which concerns another person but ends up with Peter Ould. Nothing up to date on him though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/19475393
-
Owlswing, I know I responded to this post earlier but a name came to mind today - Peter Ould. I googled him and came up with the article linked below, the beginning of which concerns another person but ends up with Peter Ould. Nothing up to date on him though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/19475393
Your liink confirms what I have said and what Hope denies - that their belief that their homosexuallity is/was wrong was a religious belief not a personal one!
Both Mr Toscano and Mr Ould state that it was their religion, Catholic and Anglican respectively, that identified their homosexuality as wrong and they accepted that as part of their religion.
-
Yes they did say that. Generally though, Christian people say the orientation is not wrong but putting it in practice is.
Interesting that Peter Ould never had a homosexual relationship, he was just attracted to other men at one time. Makes me think he might not have been gay...who knows. I'd like some more up to date info on him but could find none.
-
What is your definition of 'sin'?
An imaginary illness dreamed up by people to sell you an imaginary cure.
-
An imaginary illness dreamed up by people to sell you an imaginary cure.
Khatru, since a synonym for 'sin' is 'wrongdoing', your definition is pretty well worthless. Sin is all about putting oneself first - something that is all too common in our culture and society.
-
Your liink confirms what I have said and what Hope denies - that their belief that their homosexuallity is/was wrong was a religious belief not a personal one!
One or two examples aren't much of a ground to suggest that there are homosexuals who regard their sexuality as wrong. I've worked with people who are 1) non-religious and 2) homosexual, who hold this understanding.
-
One or two examples aren't much of a ground to suggest that there are homosexuals who regard their sexuality as wrong. I've worked with people who are 1) non-religious and 2) homosexual, who hold this understanding.
That's nice: and on what basis is this presumption of 'wrongness' justified?
Might just be their personal opinion.
-
That's nice: and on what basis is this presumption of 'wrongness' justified?
Might just be their personal opinion.
It might well be - as opposed to anything to do with a religious belief, which is (of course) what others seem to want it make to be. Two of the folk were/are of a scientific bent, and (like many here) they insisted that scientific evidence underpinned everything they believed.
-
It might well be - as opposed to anything to do with a religious belief, which is (of course) what others seem to want it make to be. Two of the folk were/are of a scientific bent, and (like many here) they insisted that scientific evidence underpinned everything they believed.
On what basis?
-
On what basis?
Probably on the same basis you claim for scientific evidence, Gordon.
-
Probably on the same basis you claim for scientific evidence, Gordon.
What basis does Gordon 'Claim for scientific evidence'? And what does that even mean?
-
Probably on the same basis you claim for scientific evidence, Gordon.
I'm not claiming anything in this exchange: I'm simply asking you about the basis of the claims you raised.
Sounds like either you don't know or you're kite flying again.
-
I'm not claiming anything in this exchange: I'm simply asking you about the basis of the claims you raised.
Sounds like either you don't know or you're kite flying again.
Unlike you, I don't interrogate everyone on the grounds for their beliefs. However, in view of these folks' regular 'appeal to science' and their lack of a religious faith, I've always assumed that when they said that they held this view on scientific grounds that was good enough.
-
Unlike you, I don't interrogate everyone on the grounds for their beliefs. However, in view of these folks' regular 'appeal to science' and their lack of a religious faith, I've always assumed that when they said that they held this view on scientific grounds that was good enough.
So, as I suspected, you don't know the basis of their views: which makes your raising of them redundant.
-
So, as I suspected, you don't know the basis of their views: which makes your raising of them redundant.
And, as I've long suspected Gordon, you don't read posts properly. As I said in my previous post, I don't interrogate people on their beliefs, but when they volunteer the fact that they believe something on scientific grounds - I tend to accept that. Perhaps I ought to chnge that approach, and question whenever the idea is used.
-
And, as I've long suspected Gordon, you don't read posts properly. As I said in my previous post, I don't interrogate people on their beliefs, but when they volunteer the fact that they believe something on scientific grounds - I tend to accept that. Perhaps I ought to chnge that approach, and question whenever the idea is used.
You should question of course, since they might be wrong or even if they are correct you might have misunderstood what they told you. Nice try by the way, but you seem to have forgotten what you said earlier to prompt this exchange, which was:
It might well be - as opposed to anything to do with a religious belief, which is (of course) what others seem to want it make to be. Two of the folk were/are of a scientific bent, and (like many here) they insisted that scientific evidence underpinned everything they believed.
Then I asked on what basis, in that since you specifically state 'scientific evidence' is involved it seems reasonable to ask you what this 'scientific evidence' is, since for you to imply these views are informed by science suggests you know something of the relevant science supporting their views - else why would you cite these people.
So, if you don't know anything of the details then for you to accept their arguments as being science-informed does seem, as I said earlier, gullible on your part: especially since they might be wrong, or since you may have misunderstood the scientific basis of their argument. However, if you do know then you should be able to easily answer my 'on what basis' question and we can then consider whether or not their science claim is sound.
Either way, given your evasion of my 'on what basis; question, this smacks of being yet another of your anecdotal claims that contain nothing more that baseless assertion.
-
I am wondering how and why the subject of right or wrong regarding homosexuality even came up with work colleagues.
However, here is something a bit different (not concerning 911 but we seem to have gone off that anyway):
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/07/gay-penguin-pair-adopts-a-baby-chick-in-china/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2629258/Gay-penguins-adopt-abandoned-chick-wildlife-park-claims-best-parents-had.html
-
I am wondering how and why the subject of right or wrong regarding homosexuality even came up with work colleagues.
Me too, especially since 'wrong' in terms of a moral position isn't a scientific question - that some scientists may believe this on a personal basis is neither here nor there: this would be just be their opinion.
I'd be very interested to see a professional scientist cite scientific evidence supporting this 'wrongness' being an objective fact: if so I'd expect to see, for example, a method for recognising, measuring and categorising 'wrongness': we don't though, but instead we get argument from weak anecdote along the lines of 'scientists I've met agree with me' or else we get fallacious arguments from authority or consequences - or a mix of the two.
-
Khatru, since a synonym for 'sin' is 'wrongdoing', your definition is pretty well worthless. Sin is all about putting oneself first - something that is all too common in our culture and society.
Wrongdoing?
What's wrong with freedom of religion?
As for being worthless, perhaps you should look a little closer to home first. From reading the Bible and listening to what believers say, it's plain to see that their supreme cosmic mega-being is quite out-of step with the values and ethics that the best of us try to adhere to.
-
Wrongdoing?
What's wrong with freedom of religion?
As for being worthless, perhaps you should look a little closer to home first. From reading the Bible and listening to what believers say, it's plain to see that their supreme cosmic mega-being is quite out-of step with the values and ethics that the best of us try to adhere to.
Does freedom of religion mean that you are unable to do anything wrong?
As for your second paragraph, I'd suggest that the values and ethics of modern Western society lacks many of the 'vs and es' that have marked the best human societies - such as caring for the weak, the disadvantaged, the marginalised and many others like that, and that the 'supreme cosmic mega-being' (whatever that might be) which you refer to both typifies and encourages those humanising 'vs and es'.
However, you are entitled to your opinions and interpretations as to what is best for humanity.
-
Does freedom of religion mean that you are unable to do anything wrong?
As for your second paragraph, I'd suggest that the values and ethics of modern Western society lacks many of the 'vs and es' that have marked the best human societies - such as caring for the weak, the disadvantaged, the marginalised and many others like that, and that the 'supreme cosmic mega-being' (whatever that might be) which you refer to both typifies and encourages those humanising 'vs and es'.
However, you are entitled to your opinions and interpretations as to what is best for humanity.
If how we treat each other is what your chosen god values most then that's fine.
However, if it's more important to him that we spend our lives telling him how great he is then he's wasting his time.
-
Any god which requires worship is a SICKO, imo.
-
Hullo floo, wondered where you were.
This is for you by way of welcome back :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXN1yxax448
-
Hullo floo, wondered where you were.
This is for you by way of welcome back :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXN1yxax448
:D :D :D
-
If how we treat each other is what your chosen god values most then that's fine.
However, if it's more important to him that we spend our lives telling him how great he is then he's wasting his time.
It is how we view the importance of truth.
You see truth is a valuable commodity to the God of the Bible.
So what we value that truth to be, is what decides the value we place on God and how it will affect our lives.
Does an all-powerful God who can do absolutely anything really require to be told he is great?
I feel to acknowledge he exists and thank him is the most we could really offer. We see things differently. I think Gods truth stands on it own.
-
It is how we view the importance of truth.
You see truth is a valuable commodity to the God of the Bible.
So what we value that truth to be, is what decides the value we place on God and how it will affect our lives.
Does an all-powerful God who can do absolutely anything really require to be told he is great?
I feel to acknowledge he exists and thank him is the most we could really offer. We see things differently. I think Gods truth stands on it own.
Truth and the most of the Biblical accounts are an oxymoron, imo.
-
Truth and the most of the Biblical accounts are an oxymoron, imo.
I will get round to looking up oxymoron one day Floo but I'm sure it is offensive to those who have faith...like Jesus Christ say, who died to show us that there are mechanics alive in our planet which can resurrect those who follow his teaching.
Innocence is also covered because it is the same mechanics that resurrects the righteous that is at work in the innocence of those who are more caring and well...righteous. So...it is wise to follow Jesus' teaching.
It wont prevent these terrible accidents occurring as is the original theme of this topic...but it will offer resurrection to a new vessel, when necessary, it will offer comfort and caring to those grieving or in shock as it did here, or if the worst had come to the worst and...with a little energy spent on de-brain-washing, as I recommend to you all...it might have even given more alertness so that the early warning signs of such an impending danger were picked up quicker. As it is the safety measures which are well practised for these events seemed to have worked in this case.
-
Any god which requires worship is a SICKO, imo.
Floo is incapable of distinguishing between worship and love. But then, it's hard to see beyond the end of your nose when you are as biased as she.
-
I will get round to looking up oxymoron one day Floo but I'm sure it is offensive to those who have faith...like Jesus Christ say, who died to show us that there are mechanics alive in our planet which can resurrect those who follow his teaching.
Innocence is also covered because it is the same mechanics that resurrects the righteous that is at work in the innocence of those who are more caring and well...righteous. So...it is wise to follow Jesus' teaching.
It wont prevent these terrible accidents occurring as is the original theme of this topic...but it will offer resurrection to a new vessel, when necessary, it will offer comfort and caring to those grieving or in shock as it did here, or if the worst had come to the worst and...with a little energy spent on de-brain-washing, as I recommend to you all...it might have even given more alertness so that the early warning signs of such an impending danger were picked up quicker. As it is the safety measures which are well practised for these events seemed to have worked in this case.
(((((Oxymoron is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.))))
One would have thought that someone claiming to know about science would know the meaning of that word!
-
(((((Oxymoron is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.))))
One would have thought that someone claiming to know about science would know the meaning of that word!
We are a nuclear power, and can well look after ourselves. But anyway, being in or out of the EU is not relevant to defence. NATO is our defence and that is independent of the EU. I do wish you people could find out what you are talking about before you pontificate!
-
We are a nuclear power, and can well look after ourselves. But anyway, being in or out of the EU is not relevant to defence. NATO is our defence and that is independent of the EU. I do wish you people could find out what you are talking about before you pontificate!
Wrong thread?
-
(((((Oxymoron is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.))))
One would have thought that someone claiming to know about science would know the meaning of that word!
No Floo...I've never come across the word until I came across your posts...now I seem to here it every day.
The problem is, you see, that a science that supports Jesus Christ...is the same science that says we are all subjects of heavy brain-washing and that this not only confuses our outward thinking but confuses our inner, thinking as well, so that you may easily read things differently to their true meaning. It is common sense that if you are told something constantly, every day...with sound-bites and excitement, often accompanied with the banging of a big drum, and with great urgency that eventually your mind will switch off to it and just accept that what is being advertised must be alright, but what they have successfully done is twisted your inner thinking so that your health is in a muddle and, sub-consciously, can't reason itself out efficiently.
Propaganda uses the same trick...so what chance have you got to realise that Jesus was teaching you how to walk away from all that brain-washing...with a kind heart and a righteous take on things, so that you are fit to participate in a new heavens and a new Earth...on the road to repair...where you wont need 911 ever again.
-
No Floo...I've never come across the word until I came across your posts...now I seem to here it every day.
The problem is, you see, that a science that supports Jesus Christ...is the same science that says we are all subjects of heavy brain-washing and that this not only confuses our outward thinking but confuses our inner, thinking as well, so that you may easily read things differently to their true meaning. It is common sense that if you are told something constantly, every day...with sound-bites and excitement, often accompanied with the banging of a big drum, and with great urgency that eventually your mind will switch off to it and just accept that what is being advertised must be alright, but what they have successfully done is twisted your inner thinking so that your health is in a muddle and, sub-consciously, can't reason itself out efficiently.
Propaganda uses the same trick...so what chance have you got to realise that Jesus was teaching you how to walk away from all that brain-washing...with a kind heart and a righteous take on things, so that you are fit to participate in a new heavens and a new Earth...on the road to repair...where you wont need 911 ever again.
Oxymoron is a word which is used very frequently in every day speech. Maybe your idea of science, which isn't science, is confusing you?
-
Oxymoron is a word which is used very frequently in every day speech. Maybe your idea of science, which isn't science, is confusing you?
You could be right Floo...It would be foolish of me to think I am totally right...but truth...and Wormwood...will have the last word on the subject.
-
You could be right Floo...It would be foolish of me to think I am totally right...but truth...and Wormwood...will have the last word on the subject.
What if the 'truth', whatever that actually is, is totally at odds with your highly imaginative version?
-
What if the 'truth', whatever that actually is, is totally at odds with your highly imaginative version?
You don't doubt the truth when it is written with such honesty, openness, good-will and the evidence of Wormwood looming.
-
No Floo...I've never come across the word until I came across your posts...now I seem to here it every day.
The problem is, you see, that a science that supports Jesus Christ...is the same science that says we are all subjects of heavy brain-washing and that this not only confuses our outward thinking but confuses our inner, thinking as well, so that you may easily read things differently to their true meaning. It is common sense that if you are told something constantly, every day...with sound-bites and excitement, often accompanied with the banging of a big drum, and with great urgency that eventually your mind will switch off to it and just accept that what is being advertised must be alright, but what they have successfully done is twisted your inner thinking so that your health is in a muddle and, sub-consciously, can't reason itself out efficiently.
Propaganda uses the same trick...so what chance have you got to realise that Jesus was teaching you how to walk away from all that brain-washing...with a kind heart and a righteous take on things, so that you are fit to participate in a new heavens and a new Earth...on the road to repair...where you wont need 911 ever again.
NM, misuse of the word brainwashing again, you actually mean indoctrination, going by the text of your post.
ippy
-
the evidence of Wormwood looming.
That would be no evidence then.
Move along now, nothing to see. ::)