Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on September 03, 2017, 11:26:23 AM
-
deleted
-
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe." - Hippocrates
-
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. We will one day understand what causes it, and then cease to call it divine. And so it is with everything in the universe." - Hippocrates
A guy who was well ahead of his time in his thinking.
-
Don't judge all Christians by a few extreme knob-jobs.
-
Don't judge all Christians by a few extreme knob-jobs.
I don't.
-
Suggest you have a look at Matthew 4:23-25 to get a more balanced Biblical perspective.
-
Suggest you have a look at Matthew 4:23-25 to get a more balanced Biblical perspective.
Nice try but no cigar, since the aforementioned verses don't actually touch upon the thread subject.
In other words, an alleged Jesus allegedly curing people of an alleged affliction doesn't really cut the mustard when said affliction is already held to be possession by demons (rather than the intermittent interruption of electro-chemical neural activity in brains that we now know it to be).
Always interesting to hear a two thousand year old view of medical science, though!
-
Nice try but no cigar, since the aforementioned verses don't actually touch upon the thread subject.
They have a very direct and important bearing on the subject. You are either using a poor translation, or you have chosen not to understand.
-
They have a very direct and important bearing on the subject. You are either using a poor translation, or you have chosen not to understand.
Those verses don't do Jesus any favours at all!
-
They have a very direct and important bearing on the subject.
No, they don't. They really, really, really, really, really, really don't.
That is, not unless you think that a two thousand year ago obscure minor Jewish handyman who didn't know where the sun went at night knows more of brain activity than a 2017 neurologist.
Upon which I would put money that you actually do, given that on past showing you certainly seem the type.
You are either using a poor translation, or you have chosen not to understand.
Oh dear. You somehow didn't quote the rest of my post.
I wonder why. (He asked rhetorically)
-
No, they don't. They really, really, really, really, really, really don't.
That is, not unless you think that a two thousand year ago obscure minor Jewish handyman who didn't know where the sun went at night knows more of brain activity than a 2017 neurologist.
Upon which I would put money that you actually do, given that on past showing you certainly seem the type.
Oh dear. You somehow didn't quote the rest of my post.
I wonder why. (He asked rhetorically)
Calm down dear, his posts are not worth you risking your BP hitting the roof!
-
No, they don't. They really, really, really, really, really, really don't.
That is, not unless you think that a two thousand year ago obscure minor Jewish handyman who didn't know where the sun went at night knows more of brain activity than a 2017 neurologist.
Upon which I would put money that you actually do, given that on past showing you certainly seem the type.
Oh dear. You somehow didn't quote the rest of my post.
I wonder why. (He asked rhetorically)
You do know the difference between a psychiatrist and a neurologist I suppose.
In terms of humanity Jesus is the ultimate software specialist and a 2017 neurologist is more of a hardwear specialist.
Even Dawkins has had to admit to 'human softwear' hence memes. With a difference in vocab Dawkins and his wee wizards end up with it's own demons.....religion as bad memes or viruses.
-
You do know the difference between a psychiatrist and a neurologist I suppose.
Yes I think I do.
In terms of humanity Jesus is the ultimate software specialist
Love to know the 'reasoning' behind that little gem.
-
Yes I think I do.
Love to know the 'reasoning' behind that little gem.
How could you not know Jesus invented the first computer? ;D
-
Silly me :D
-
Love to know the 'reasoning' behind that little gem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Blessed are the memes, for they shall inherit the earth?
-
Going back to Floo’s original post where she says, ‘According to Matthew 17 v 14-17 it would appear Jesus believed those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons!’ I am interested to know on what basis Floo feels that this passage can be used to allow us to conclude that a) the young lad had epilepsy and b) that Jesus believed epilepsy to be a result of demon possession?
-
Going back to Floo’s original post where she says, ‘According to Matthew 17 v 14-17 it would appear Jesus believed those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons!’ I am interested to know on what basis Floo feels that this passage can be used to allow us to conclude that a) the young lad had epilepsy and b) that Jesus believed epilepsy to be a result of demon possession?
Seizures usually indicate epilepsy.
14 When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17 “You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment. Matthew 17 v14-18 NIV
-
Seizures usually indicate epilepsy.
14 When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17 “You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment. Matthew 17 v14-18 NIV
I guess you are building up to the abuses of certain self styled faith healers and you don't have to be a card carrying antitheist on that one to be concerned fake medical claims occur in all aspects of medicine or claimed therapy.
I note you are pushing for an interpretation of epilepsy and are therefore claiming a misdiagnosis on the part of Jesus and a false cure. Hindsight leads a Christian to believe that Jesus was spot on in cases like this and the healing was successful. The ''Has the age of miracles passed'' debate still rages.
I don't think a card carrying secular humanist fully trained up neuroscientist would have been available in first century Palestine. But maybe if Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris, the father of neuroscience and religion? teamed up the lack of a time travelling antitheist neuroscientist might be overcome.
-
I guess you are building up to the abuses of certain self styled faith healers and you don't have to be a card carrying antitheist on that one to be concerned fake medical claims occur in all aspects of medicine or claimed therapy.
I note you are pushing for an interpretation of epilepsy and are therefore claiming a misdiagnosis on the part of Jesus and a false cure. Hindsight leads a Christian to believe that Jesus was spot on in cases like this and the healing was successful. The ''Has the age of miracles passed'' debate still rages.
I don't think a card carrying secular humanist fully trained up neuroscientist would have been available in first century Palestine. But maybe if Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris, the father of neuroscience and religion teamed up the lack of a time travelling antitheist neuroscientist might be overcome.
Maybe Jesus was the Benny Hinn of his day!
-
Maybe Jesus was the Benny Hinn of his day!
or maybe he wasn't.
-
or maybe he wasn't.
Or maybe everything the gospel writers claimed about Jesus was a work of fiction.
-
Or maybe everything the gospel writers claimed about Jesus was a work of fiction.
Or maybe it wasn't.
Or maybe someone who argues that Jesus misdiagnosed and did a bogus cure and then says, when challenged, that oh maybe the situation I've just analysed never happened looks as though they have an axe to grind.
-
Going back to Floo’s original post where she says, ‘According to Matthew 17 v 14-17 it would appear Jesus believed those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons!’ I am interested to know on what basis Floo feels that this passage can be used to allow us to conclude that a) the young lad had epilepsy and b) that Jesus believed epilepsy to be a result of demon possession?
You have your answers ;)
-
Or maybe it wasn't.
Or maybe someone who argues that Jesus misdiagnosed and did a bogus cure and then says, when challenged, that oh maybe the situation I've just analysed never happened looks as though they have an axe to grind.
As that sort of 'healing' by Jesus or faith healers is not credible, it can be dismissed as having actually happened, imo.
-
Going back to Floo’s original post where she says, ‘According to Matthew 17 v 14-17 it would appear Jesus believed those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons!’ I am interested to know on what basis Floo feels that this passage can be used to allow us to conclude that a) the young lad had epilepsy and b) that Jesus believed epilepsy to be a result of demon possession?
It was the father of the boy who claimed that his son was a lunatic (affected by the moon) and the author of Matthew reported that Jesus rebuked it, and the demon came out from him, and the boy was cured from that hour.
-
As that sort of 'healing' by Jesus or faith healers is not credible, it can be dismissed as having actually happened, imo.
Im not sure of your warrant that it can be dismissed.
It makes sense that religious issues have religious answers. After all mental health issues are not totally answered by surgical interventions. A true materialist medicine based on New Atheist principles of Dennett and Harris would soon become a golden age of lobotomies, convulsive therapies and chemical coshes. IMO since only physical interventions fit the philosophy.
-
Im not sure of your warrant that it can be dismissed.
It makes sense that religious issues have religious answers. After all mental health issues are not totally answered by surgical interventions. A true materialist medicine based on New Atheist principles of Dennett and Harris would soon become a golden age of lobotomies, convulsive therapies and chemical coshes. IMO since only physical interventions fit the philosophy.
What sort of sense?
-
It makes sense that religious issues have religious answers.
Only if the issues involved are exclusively religious ones. Where the religious perspective involves non-religious aspects then these other perspectives (non-religious ones) are relevant.
After all mental health issues are not totally answered by surgical interventions.
Nobody suggested they would be.
A true materialist medicine based on New Atheist principles of Dennett and Harris would soon become a golden age of lobotomies, convulsive therapies and chemical coshes. IMO since only physical interventions fit the philosophy.
Leaving aside what 'a true materialist' is and the relevance of Dennett and Harris, I take it psychiatry is something you know little about, hence your hopeless caricature of it.
-
Only if the issues involved are exclusively religious ones. Where the religious perspective involves non-religious aspects then these other perspectives (non-religious ones) are relevant.
I don't believe I have voiced any disagreement with that and after all a man viewed as the spiritual father of millions gave his benediction on analysis recently.
-
What sort of sense?
Perhaps the same sort of sense which drives those with issues about religion to hang with people who are quite happy with it.
-
Perhaps the same sort of sense which drives those with issues about religion to hang with people who are quite happy with it.
Perhaps those people are very similar to those with issues about atheism to hang with people who are quite happy with it?
-
Perhaps those people are very similar to those with issues about atheism to hang with people who are quite happy with it?
No..........they would be on Atheistethics.
So where does the happiness in atheism come from? Careful now.
-
No..........they would be on Atheistethics.
Never heard of it.
Why are you here......hanging out with those happy with atheism?
You could always do what you have suggested in the past and leave, indefinitely!
-
So where does the happiness in atheism come from? Careful now.
Possibly from a similar place to where happiness comes from in a-Islamism?
Careful now.
-
Never heard of it.
Why are you here......hanging out with those happy with atheism?
You could always do what you have suggested in the past and leave, indefinitely!
I'm here because it's called religionethics.
-
I'm here because it's called religionethics.
Perhaps others are here for the similar reasons?
Religion and Ethics.
There are also many other sites which have the word religion and/or ethics in them. How many of those are you a member of?
-
As that sort of 'healing' by Jesus or faith healers is not credible, it can be dismissed as having actually happened, imo.
And yet we have three parallel accounts of the healing, each of which give details not mentioned by the others; eg Luke says that this was the man's only child. Three eyewitnesses behind the account, so we can trust it.
-
And yet we have three parallel accounts of the healing, each of which give details not mentioned by the others; eg Luke says that this was the man's only child. Three eyewitnesses behind the account, so we can trust it.
Oh course we can't trust eye witness accounts of things which aren't credible.
-
And yet we have three parallel accounts of the healing, each of which give details not mentioned by the others; eg Luke says that this was the man's only child. Three eyewitnesses behind the account, so we can trust it.
That you have eye witness isn't enough but you don't even have that - it's reports from people that weren't there who you don't know about something that you have no method in law or history to establish .
-
Oh course we can't trust eye witness accounts of things which aren't credible.
Actually we can't trust eye witness accounts, even if that were what we had, of credible events. Note you are also using the argument by incredulity to say that something didn't happen and given that's a fallacy it's worthless.
-
Actually we can't trust eye witness accounts, even if that were what we had, of credible events. Note you are also using the argument by incredulity to say that something didn't happen and given that's a fallacy it's worthless.
Good point.
-
about something that you have no method in law or history to establish .
I might be wrong, but isn't this an argument by incredulity?
If the event was a natural one you wouldn't have a problem trusting the three accounts.
The fact that three people have recorded the same core details but added their own extra ones is exactly what you would expect of a historical event, since three people cannot view it from the same angle; they will each record slightly different details.
-
I might be wrong, but isn't this an argument by incredulity?
You're wrong.
If the event was a natural one you wouldn't have a problem trusting the three accounts.
I would.
The fact that three people have recorded the same core details but added their own extra ones is exactly what you would expect, since three people cannot view an event from the same angle; they will each record slightly different details.
Good reasons to be sceptical then.
-
That you have eye witness isn't enough but you don't even have that - it's reports from people that weren't there who you don't know...
Try this:
<<The stories were recorded and read aloud in worship by people who remembered the events and would have corrected any glaring errors. Evidence for this is in Mark 15.21 where Mark records that Simon of Cyrene–who helped carry the cross of Christ–was the “father of Rufus and Alexander.” Mark is probably writing the account for the use of the Church in Rome where history records he ministered with Peter. In St Paul’s epistle to the same Roman church he mentions Rufus as one of the faithful. (Romans 16.13) One can almost hear Peter talking about Simon of Cyrene and saying, “And he was Rufus’ father–who is here with us now.”>>
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/are-the-gospels-historical#SeAoyQdZh9o7JWkX.99
-
You're wrong.
Pourqoi?
I would.
Would you believe the witness who stated he saw the cyclist shout at the woman he rode into while she lay in the road?
Good reasons to be sceptical then.
How can evidence that is exactly what you would expect if it was true be a good reason to be skeptical? ???
-
Try this:
<<The stories were recorded and read aloud in worship by people who remembered the events and would have corrected any glaring errors. Evidence for this is in Mark 15.21 where Mark records that Simon of Cyrene–who helped carry the cross of Christ–was the “father of Rufus and Alexander.” Mark is probably writing the account for the use of the Church in Rome where history records he ministered with Peter. In St Paul’s epistle to the same Roman church he mentions Rufus as one of the faithful. (Romans 16.13) One can almost hear Peter talking about Simon of Cyrene and saying, “And he was Rufus’ father–who is here with us now.”>>
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/are-the-gospels-historical#SeAoyQdZh9o7JWkX.99
What has that got to do with the fact that that aren't eye witness accounts, that you have no idea who 'Mark' was or and eye witness even if you had it is unreliable?
BTW given that you claimed this was eyewitnesses, can you admit you were wring to do so, instead of ignoring that?
-
Try this:
<<The stories were recorded and read aloud in worship by people who remembered the events and would have corrected any glaring errors. Evidence for this is in Mark 15.21 where Mark records that Simon of Cyrene–who helped carry the cross of Christ–was the “father of Rufus and Alexander.” Mark is probably writing the account for the use of the Church in Rome where history records he ministered with Peter. In St Paul’s epistle to the same Roman church he mentions Rufus as one of the faithful. (Romans 16.13) One can almost hear Peter talking about Simon of Cyrene and saying, “And he was Rufus’ father–who is here with us now.”>>
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/are-the-gospels-historical#SeAoyQdZh9o7JWkX.99
You seem hooked on these religious sites, Spud. This one contains this gem of contradictory nonsense:
The supernatural elements in a story do not demand religious belief, nor do they demand belief that the supernatural events took place just as said, nor do they demand assent to the whole premise of the supernatural. What they do demand is that the reader accept that they are the record of a real experience by a historical person. So, for example, one may doubt that Jesus walked on the water. One may come up with all sorts of other explanations. However, one must accept that Peter and the other disciples experienced Jesus walking on the water. What actually happened may be open for question and debate, but the one thing we know happened is that twelve men perceived another man to be walking to them on the waves.
I'm sure you can see the problems.
-
What has that got to do with the fact that that aren't eye witness accounts, that you have no idea who 'Mark' was or and eye witness even if you had it is unreliable?
They were written for people who could verify the details, as seen in Mark 15:21.
BTW given that you claimed this was eyewitnesses, can you admit you were wring to do so, instead of ignoring that?
What I meant was that eyewitness testimony is behind the accounts
-
Pourqoi?
NS didn't offer an argument from incredulity, so you were wrong to suggest that he may have.
Would you believe the witness who stated he saw the cyclist shout at the woman he rode into while she lay in the road?
In general I'd be sceptical of witness statements, especially if they didn't agree. If the matter being described was trivial then I wouldn't be unduly bothered, in view of the triviality, but for anything non-trivial I'd say scepticism is advised.
How can evidence that is exactly what you would expect if it was true be a good reason to be skeptical? ???
Because my expectations might be wrong as might the evidence that confirms my expectations: confirmation bias you see, so scepticism is a healthy attitude - especially where the matter is non-trivial and/or highly unusual.
-
They were written for people who could verify the details, as seen in Mark 15:21.
What I meant was that eyewitness testimony is behind the accounts
you don't know who Mark is/was and claiming it is an eye witness account is wrong. If you don't retract the claim you are lying.
BTW if someone appeared in court this would be 'hearsay' you don't even have that since you don't know who is making the claim. In legal terms the entirety if this is worthless, so stopusing terms like eye witness incorrectly. Note thus has been pointed out to you previously so why continue with vacuous incorrect assertions?
-
NS didn't offer an argument from incredulity, so you were wrong to suggest that he may have.
Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?
In general I'd be sceptical of witness statements, especially if they didn't agree. If the matter being described was trivial then I wouldn't be unduly bothered, in view of the triviality, but for anything non-trivial I'd say scepticism is advised.
The three gospel accounts agree; the cyclist could be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, which is not trivial if the punishment for this is imprisonment. That is the reason for requiring the evidence of two or more witnesses to agree.
Because my expectations might be wrong as might the evidence that confirms my expectations: confirmation bias you see, so scepticism is a healthy attitude - especially where the matter is non-trivial and/or highly unusual.
It's a matter of fact that evidence from different witnesses will contain different details. As previously discussed, the authors had nothing to gain from inventing the accounts. This argues against the stories being invented.
As for the evidence being mistaken, see the link: <<The fact that the gospels were records of sermons to the early church community strengthens the case for historical reliability because the community itself would exercise a form of check and balance with the historical record.>>
-
Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?
I would be obliged if you didn't misrepresent what was said. I said YOU don't have a methodology in law or history to establish the claim. Until you demonstrate something, I am simply not asserting belief either way. i am not saying it isn't true, just you haven't met any burden of proof.
And see previous post as to why your claim about eye witness accounts in law here are specious.
-
Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?
As I said earlier: you are wrong.
The three gospel accounts agree; the cyclist could be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, which is not trivial if the punishment for this is imprisonment. That is the reason for requiring the evidence of two or more witnesses to agree.
Their evidence still may be wrong, and juries are fallible too. However, when it comes to recent events for which there is corroboration: a damaged bicycle or injuries requiring treatment then it may be the evidence is credible, especially since the provenance can be explored.
The situation differs though when it comes to ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance: in such cases scepticism is well advised since the risks of mistakes or lies can't be practically addressed. Therefore historians don't report that Jesus was resurrected since they have no method to investigate this, so they report that people believed he was (which isn't the same thing).
That NS was pointing out to you that your claim isn't amenable to historical research methods isn't a fallacy of personal incredulity - do you get it now?
It's a matter of fact that evidence from different witnesses will contain different details.
Therefore scepticism is advisable, along with methods to investigate both the claim and any differences in accounts.
As previously discussed, the authors had nothing to gain from inventing the accounts. This argues against the stories being invented.
Unless I'm mistaken the stories about Jesus portray him as divine: ever heard of propaganda. That early Christians were somehow immune from human artifice sounds awfully like special pleading - and even then, as noted, their claims aren't amenable to investigation, so scepticism is advised.
As for the evidence being mistaken, see the link: <<The fact that the gospels were records of sermons to the early church community strengthens the case for historical reliability because the community itself would exercise a form of check and balance with the historical record.>>
Only if you think these early Christians were infallible: I don't think anyone is infallible.
-
As I said earlier: you are wrong.
Their evidence still may be wrong, and juries are fallible too. However, when it comes to recent events for which there is corroboration: a damaged bicycle or injuries requiring treatment then it may be the evidence is credible, especially since the provenance can be explored.
The situation differs though when it comes to ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance: in such cases scepticism is well advised since the risks of mistakes or lies can't be practically addressed. Therefore historians don't report that Jesus was resurrected since they have no method to investigate this, so they report that people believed he was (which isn't the same thing).
That NS was pointing out to you that your claim isn't amenable to historical research methods isn't a fallacy of personal incredulity - do you get it now?
Therefore scepticism is advisable, along with methods to investigate both the claim and any differences in accounts.
Unless I'm mistaken the stories about Jesus portray him as divine: ever heard of propaganda. That early Christians were somehow immune from human artifice sounds awfully like special pleading - and even then, as noted, their claims aren't amenable to investigation, so scepticism is advised.
Only if you think these early Christians were infallible: I don't think anyone is infallible.
Unfortunately Gordon you only have to be infallible to get everything right.
You need not be infallaible to get important things right.
-
Unfortunately Gordon you only have to be infallible to get everything right.
You need not be infallaible to get important things right.
Even so you can still make mistakes: involving both the important and the trivial, and since people are fallible then scepticism is always relevant.
So your attempted point seems pointless.
-
Even so you can still make mistakes: involving both the important and the trivial, and since people are fallible then scepticism is always relevant.
You can make mistakes but to assume mistakes have been made or to bend this argument and choose selective mistakes to suit argument is rather suspect.
Yes we can make mistakes, That doesn't guarantee mistakes have been made.
-
Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?
The three gospel accounts agree; the cyclist could be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, which is not trivial if the punishment for this is imprisonment. That is the reason for requiring the evidence of two or more witnesses to agree.
It's a matter of fact that evidence from different witnesses will contain different details. As previously discussed, the authors had nothing to gain from inventing the accounts. This argues against the stories being invented.
As for the evidence being mistaken, see the link: <<The fact that the gospels were records of sermons to the early church community strengthens the case for historical reliability because the community itself would exercise a form of check and balance with the historical record.>>
You have made no case for historical reliability, imo.
-
You have made no case for historical reliability, imo.
But a better historical case than any alternative view.
-
But a better historical case than any alternative view.
No, actually.
-
No, actually.
Let's hear it. It has to be historical mind not scientific or History is a materialist thing or any of that bollocks.
-
Let's hear it. It has to be historical mind not scientific or History is a materialist thing or any of that bollocks.
I think what you're trying to say, in your customarily incoherent way, is: "History is methodologically naturalistic and doesn't support my belief system ... waaaaaaaagh mummy they're being meeeeeaaaaaan".
The same as usual, therefore.
-
I think what you're trying to say, in your customarily incoherent way, is: "History is methodologically naturalistic and doesn't support my belief system ... waaaaaaaagh mummy they're being meeeeeaaaaaan".
The same as usual, therefore.
Look Shaker, Be as mean as you like, whatever alternative history you have got...... put it up for scrutiny.
-
I think what you're trying to say, in your customarily incoherent way, is: "History is methodologically naturalistic and doesn't support my belief system ... waaaaaaaagh mummy they're being meeeeeaaaaaan".
He did it! He turned History into science!
-
That's the problem; what you call alternative history is what those of us in the reality-based community call history. Yours is the alternative version; the alternative being no methodology to a methodology.
-
He did it! He turned History into science!
No; it's that history and science share the same procedural toolkit.
-
That's the problem; what you call alternative history is what those of us in the reality-based community call history. Yours is the alternative version; the alternative being no methodology to a methodology.
Stop blustering and give us your history for scrutiny
-
But a better historical case than any alternative view.
How do you make that out?
-
You can make mistakes but to assume mistakes have been made or to bend this argument and choose selective mistakes to suit argument is rather suspect.
Don't be silly: I've often noted that mistakes (and lies) are risks when it comes to people, that that these risks need to be assessed.
Yes we can make mistakes, That doesn't guarantee mistakes have been made.
It doesn't, but it does imply some sort of assessment in order to say with reasonable confidence that no mistake(s) has been made.
-
Don't be silly: I've often noted that mistakes (and lies) are risks when it comes to people, that that these risks need to be assessed.
It doesn't, but it does imply some sort of assessment in order to say with reasonable confidence that no mistake(s) has been made.
If that is what you are settling on I have no further questions of you. The court usher will escort you back until such times it will be necessary to interrogate you again.
-
If that is what you are settling on I have no further questions of you. The court usher will escort you back until such times it will be necessary to interrogate you again.
You wouldn't make a cop or lawyer, your interrogation techniques are well below par. ;D
-
You wouldn't make a cop or lawyer, your interrogation techniques are well below par. ;D
I tell you what is below Par.......Falmouth.
-
I tell you what is below Par.......Falmouth.
Ehhhhh?
-
Ehhhhh?
Ah....................shit at Geography as well.
-
Ah....................shit at Geography as well.
I was good at geography when at school, but I have no idea what Falmouth, which is situated in the south of Cornwall, got to do with this thread? Mind you, why am I surprised as what passes for thought where you are concerned is so convoluted, it is difficult to make head nor tail of your posts! ::)
-
I was good at geography when at school, but I have no idea what Falmouth, which is situated in the south of Cornwall, got to do with this thread? Mind you, why am I surprised as what passes for thought where you are concerned is so convoluted, it is difficult to make head nor tail of your posts! ::)
Not that good at geography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par,_Cornwall
-
Not that good at geography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par,_Cornwall
OK I hadn't heard of Par, but what has it to do with this thread?
-
OK I hadn't heard of Par, but what has it to do with this thread?
I'm just pulling your leg.
-
I'm just pulling your leg.
I still don't get it? ::)
-
I still don't get it? ::)
I wouldn't worry about it.
-
I wouldn't worry about it.
I am definitely not worried about it! :D
-
According to Matthew 17 v 14-17 it would appear Jesus believed those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons! In those far off days, it might have been forgivable for people to believe in such nonsense as a major epileptic seizure is very scary indeed. I have witnessed several as my husband has the condition after his brain haemorrhage in 2006, fortunately his meds control the seizures. In this day and age of modern medicine we know the cause of this condition, and of course mythical demons have nothing to do with it.
Unbelievable as it sounds, I have come across on forums some ultra extreme Biblical literalists who not only believe demons actually exist, but epileptics are possessed by them. Hopefully no one on this forum is that silly?
Epilespy and demon possession are two different things.Did you forget you have discussed it before?
People with epilepsy don't have demons speaking through them when having a seizure.
Major fits are not frightening only worrying regarding the person having them. Demonic possession would leave you not doubting they existed.
Why you insist on doing the same debates and not acknowledging that we have already reached the fact they are not the same thing leads me to believe you are not genuine in your reasons for writing such a thread.
-
Epilespy and demon possession are two different things.Did you forget you have discussed it before?
People with epilepsy don't have demons speaking through them when having a seizure.
We know that know. Jesus apparently didn't.
-
Epilespy and demon possession are two different things.Did you forget you have discussed it before?
People with epilepsy don't have demons speaking through them when having a seizure.
Major fits are not frightening only worrying regarding the person having them. Demonic possession would leave you not doubting they existed.
Why you insist on doing the same debates and not acknowledging that we have already reached the fact they are not the same thing leads me to believe you are not genuine in your reasons for writing such a thread.
And you have seen someone possessed of a demon have you? :o
-
We know that know. Jesus apparently didn't.
It would appear he didn't if those verses in the NIV are correct.
-
It would appear he didn't if those verses in the NIV are correct.
There is perhaps one small problem with the NIV in these verses. It quotes the father as saying that his son had 'seizures'. In fact the literal translation would be that he was 'moonstruck'. Both the old KJV and the modern NASB translate this as, 'he is a lunatic'. Not a very politically correct word to use today but 'moonstruck' was a general term to imply mental health problems. Certainly in Jesus' time those manifesting epileptic symptoms would been considered as moonstruck and many attributed this to demon possession. Clearly this was the father's understanding of his son's underlying problem.
But you are misinterpreting these verses if you conclude that Jesus linked epilepsy to demon possession. There is nothing in the text to justify such a conclusion. Nowhere does Jesus make such a connection. In fact the Scriptures make a very clear distinction between those who are 'moonstruck' and those who problems are the result of demon possession. The father's words are a reflection of his personal understanding but nowhere is this endorsed by Jesus.
It is always worth considering what 'the beloved physician' Luke has to say in instances where sickness and healings are covered. Luke's medical background is always clear in such instances. In his parallel account Luke makes absolutely no mention of the boy being 'moonstruck'. He simply records the father as telling Jesus that a spirit seizes his son leading to these manifestations. With his medical hat on Luke recognizes quite clearly that the problem here is not a mental health one but a spiritual one. So, while he probably had access to Matthews Gospel (as would many of his readers), in order to give clarity to his readers Luke is careful to place the diagnosis in its correct medical perspective. This is not a boy afflicted by epilepsy, he has a deep seated spiritual problem which Jesus deals with decisively by casting the demon out.
-
There is perhaps one small problem with the NIV in these verses. It quotes the father as saying that his son had 'seizures'. In fact the literal translation would be that he was 'moonstruck'. Both the old KJV and the modern NASB translate this as, 'he is a lunatic'. Not a very politically correct word to use today but 'moonstruck' was a general term to imply mental health problems. Certainly in Jesus' time those manifesting epileptic symptoms would been considered as moonstruck and many attributed this to demon possession. Clearly this was the father's understanding of his son's underlying problem.
But you are misinterpreting these verses if you conclude that Jesus linked epilepsy to demon possession. There is nothing in the text to justify such a conclusion. Nowhere does Jesus make such a connection. In fact the Scriptures make a very clear distinction between those who are 'moonstruck' and those who problems are the result of demon possession. The father's words are a reflection of his personal understanding but nowhere is this endorsed by Jesus.
It is always worth considering what 'the beloved physician' Luke has to say in instances where sickness and healings are covered. Luke's medical background is always clear in such instances. In his parallel account Luke makes absolutely no mention of the boy being 'moonstruck'. He simply records the father as telling Jesus that a spirit seizes his son leading to these manifestations. With his medical hat on Luke recognizes quite clearly that the problem here is not a mental health one but a spiritual one. So, while he probably had access to Matthews Gospel (as would many of his readers), in order to give clarity to his readers Luke is careful to place the diagnosis in its correct medical perspective. This is not a boy afflicted by epilepsy, he has a deep seated spiritual problem which Jesus deals with decisively by casting the demon out.
The NIV definitely says seizures whether you like it or not. Jesus was silly enough to play a game of exorcism hocus pocus if the gospel account is correct. Carrying out any such nonsense on a child is very WRONG indeed. It still happens to this day and has even caused death. It should be illegal to carry out exorcisms on children and the vulnerable.
Luke's medical background? A fully qualified doctor was he? ::)
-
This is not a boy afflicted by epilepsy, he has a deep seated spiritual problem which Jesus deals with decisively by casting the demon out.
The truly amusing thing is that I'm sure you genuinely think that your logic-chopping exegesis is something to which we're all supposed to go: "Ohhhhh ... I see now ... demon possession. Well, that suddenly makes it all so much more credible."
-
The truly amusing thing is that I'm sure you genuinely think that your logic-chopping exegesis is something to which we're all supposed to go: "Ohhhhh ... I see now ... demon possession. Well, that suddenly makes it all so much more credible."
Profound response.
-
I know.
-
The NIV definitely says seizures whether you like it or not. Jesus was silly enough to play a game of exorcism hocus pocus if the gospel account is correct. Carrying out any such nonsense on a child is very WRONG indeed. It still happens to this day and has even caused death. It should be illegal to carry out exorcisms on children and the vulnerable.
Luke's medical background? A fully qualified doctor was he? ::)
If Jesus truly was God incarnate, then we might have expected better of him (since it is highly unlikely that demons do exist). However, since it is far more likely that he was a somewhat deluded wandering preacher (with a number of life-enhancing things to say), then it is a bit much to expect anything more from him than acting according to the accepted beliefs of the time. I've a feeling that Hippocrates was rather loath to invoke spiritual forces in explaining signs of mental disturbance, and so probably were a number of his ancient Greek contemporaries, but they always tended to be a bit ahead of the game, didn't they?
We've no idea who Luke was, or whether he really wrote the gospel and Acts attributed to him. That a certain Luke mentioned in the Bible was a "beloved physician" probably indicates that there was a trusted doctor around among the disciples, and by the standards of the time, he was probably quite adept.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, (before getting too caught up in the idea of the inexorable progress of history) that modern medicine doesn't always work; and ancient medicine didn't always fail. I'd trust myself more with modern methods of dealing with appendicitis or bladder stones though :)
-
If Jesus truly was God incarnate, then we might have expected better of him (since it is highly unlikely that demons do exist). However, since it is far more likely that he was a somewhat deluded wandering preacher (with a number of life-enhancing things to say), then it is a bit much to expect anything more from him than acting according to the accepted beliefs of the time. I've a feeling that Hippocrates was rather loath to invoke spiritual forces in explaining signs of mental disturbance, and so probably were a number of his ancient Greek contemporaries, but they always tended to be a bit ahead of the game, didn't they?
We've no idea who Luke was, or whether he really wrote the gospel and Acts attributed to him. That a certain Luke mentioned in the Bible was a "beloved physician" probably indicates that there was a trusted doctor around among the disciples, and by the standards of the time, he was probably quite adept.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, (before getting too caught up in the idea of the inexorable progress of history) that modern medicine doesn't always work; and ancient medicine didn't always fail. I'd trust myself more with modern methods of dealing with appendicitis or bladder stones though :)
In fact Hippocrates (5BC) rejected the view that epilepsy had a spiritual cause and in fact argued and taught in his medical school that he considered the underlying cause to be linked to problem(s) in the brain. Very much the minority view for the time. But it is quite possible that Luke would have had knowledge of this and perhaps even accepted Hippocrates' view.
Incidentally Josephus, the first century Jewish historian. provides a somewhat amusing account which supports your contention that ancient medicine was not necessarily as primitive as is often thought. During the time of the Greek Empire many Jews embraced much of the Hellenistic philosophy, particularly the emphasis of the physical body. Many young Jewish men were attracted to this and were participants in the Greek Games. But, of course, the athletes participated stark naked. This was the source of considerable embarrassment for them due to their circumcision. They found themselves to be the butt of much laughter and amusement, particularly by the young ladies present. Josephus tells us that many of them had their circumcision reversed, i.e. the underwent tricky (and painful) skin grafts to restore their foreskins.
Not sure how successful these procedures were but the fact that the medical profession of the day was prepared to even attempt skin grafts represents quite complex medical ability and knowledge for the time.
-
In fact Hippocrates (5BC) rejected the view that epilepsy had a spiritual cause and in fact argued and taught in his medical school that he considered the underlying cause to be linked to problem(s) in the brain. Very much the minority view for the time. But it is quite possible that Luke would have had knowledge of this and perhaps even accepted Hippocrates' view.
Incidentally Josephus, the first century Jewish historian. provides a somewhat amusing account which supports your contention that ancient medicine was not necessarily as primitive as is often thought. During the time of the Greek Empire many Jews embraced much of the Hellenistic philosophy, particularly the emphasis of the physical body. Many young Jewish men were attracted to this and were participants in the Greek Games. But, of course, the athletes participated stark naked. This was the source of considerable embarrassment for them due to their circumcision. They found themselves to be the butt of much laughter and amusement, particularly by the young ladies present. Josephus tells us that many of them had their circumcision reversed, i.e. the underwent tricky (and painful) skin grafts to restore their foreskins.
Not sure how successful these procedures were but the fact that the medical profession of the day was prepared to even attempt skin grafts represents quite complex medical ability and knowledge for the time.
Chapter and verse please.
-
The NIV definitely says seizures whether you like it or not. Jesus was silly enough to play a game of exorcism hocus pocus if the gospel account is correct. Carrying out any such nonsense on a child is very WRONG indeed. It still happens to this day and has even caused death. It should be illegal to carry out exorcisms on children and the vulnerable.
Luke's medical background? A fully qualified doctor was he? ::)
The thing that demonstrates this boy's illness to have been caused by spiritual forces is his response to Jesus: when he first sees him, and when Jesus speaks to him he immediately has a seizure.
A friend of mine suffered from epileptic seizures as a young adult but managed to overcome it through prayer (she had been offered either drugs to control it or surgery, I can't remember which, and declined the treatment).
-
A friend of mine suffered from epileptic seizures as a young adult but managed to overcome it through prayer
I assume there'll be no evidence of this claim, of course - there never is.
I further assume there were no controls put in place. (How do you know it was due to prayer?).
I go on to assume that you're unaware that many, many cases* of epilepsy in young people spontaneously disappear over time (i.e. are 'grown out of' - multiple accounts from the Epilepsy Foundation here: https://tinyurl.com/ydekyyxu ).
* 80% according to some sources.
-
The thing that demonstrates this boy's illness to have been caused by spiritual forces is his response to Jesus: when he first sees him, and when Jesus speaks to him he immediately has a seizure.
A friend of mine suffered from epileptic seizures as a young adult but managed to overcome it through prayer (she had been offered either drugs to control it or surgery, I can't remember which, and declined the treatment).
Spud, I've no wish to pour water on your flames but there are many young people who develop epilepsy as young adults or at puberty, who actually outgrow it. It's also not uncommon for people to have epileptic seizures following head injury but they cease in time.
I know someone who was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a young person and claims God's healing for this condition but, again, young people sometimes display schizophrenic symptoms, eg psychotic episodes, which die out as they get older. They are misdiagnosed as schizophrenic.
What I believe is that prayer can help lift spirits and make people feel better; it is comforting to have support from others but it is unwise to claim healing in the sense of curing. There's nothing wrong with feeling better! We'd all want that for ourselves and others in times of illness.
-
Shaker, yes there is no direct evidence that her healing was due to prayer, I just thought I'd mention it though. Since it is hearsay from your perspective, I could mention a personal experience where I once had a very painful shoulder that I cured by hanging from branches of trees. I seem to remember that it was talking to a friend about it that motivated me to do that. This illustrates the faith aspect which is described in the account of the boy. Often sickness doesn't clear up until there is confession by the sufferer or by someone on their behalf.
-
Which I think illustrates the psychological benefit of care and prayer, Spud.
-
Robinson,
Yes actually this case of epilepsy was probably cause by previous head injury.
-
The thing that demonstrates this boy's illness to have been caused by spiritual forces is his response to Jesus: when he first sees him, and when Jesus speaks to him he immediately has a seizure.
A friend of mine suffered from epileptic seizures as a young adult but managed to overcome it through prayer (she had been offered either drugs to control it or surgery, I can't remember which, and declined the treatment).
Epilepsy is a neurological problem, nothing to do with so called 'spiritual forces' whatever they are supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that prayer is going to cure anything, unless it acts as a placebo, which in the case of epilepsy I would have thought improbable.
-
Floo,
I was just pointing out that when the boy first saw Jesus he immediately had a fit, and again when Jesus spoke. Plus he was apparently healed following this final fit. It's not a usual characteristic of epilepsy that meeting a stranger would precipitate a fit, nor lead to complete healing from the condition, as far as I know.
-
Floo,
I was just pointing out that when the boy first saw Jesus he immediately had a fit, and again when Jesus spoke. Plus he was apparently healed following this final fit.
So the story goes, Spud: but it is anecdotal and from this distance beyond verification, especially the 'healing' bit - how do you know these apparent details aren't propaganda for Jesus?
It's not a usual characteristic of epilepsy that meeting a stranger would precipitate a fit, nor lead to complete healing from the condition, as far as I know.
So, given this isn't usual, would you not be sceptical that either the boy wasn't epileptic since what we understand of this condition now obviously wasn't understood then? So that if he wasn't suffering from any neurological condition then he couldn't be 'healed' from it, and then there is the problem of knowing whether or not there is any accuracy at all in this anecdotal account.
-
Epilepsy is a neurological problem, nothing to do with so called 'spiritual forces' whatever they are supposed to be. I find it hard to believe that prayer is going to cure anything, unless it acts as a placebo, which in the case of epilepsy I would have thought improbable.
There is nothing to forbid the spiritual interacting with the physical.
If I read a moving piece of literature, eg Bluehillsides history of typewriters, I feel moved to tears with the beauty of it and a neurological response ensues.
-
There is nothing to forbid the spiritual interacting with the physical.
If I read a moving piece of literature, eg Bluehillsides history of typewriters, I feel moved to tears with the beauty of it and a neurological response ensues.
It depends on how you define 'spiritual'.
I have put this topic on an American forum on which I post, and can't believe some of the responses I have got. The belief in demons seems to be rampant in that country! :o Apparently some believe all mental illnesses are caused by demonic possession, including Alzheimer's disease! :o
-
It depends on how you define 'spiritual'.
I have put this topic on an American forum on which I post, and can't believe some of the responses I have got. The belief in demons seems to be rampant in that country! :o Apparently some believe all mental illnesses are caused by demonic possession, including Alzheimer's disease! :o
yes American religion and irreligion is a bit of jamboree isn't it.
Mainstream Christian denominations don't believe all mental illnesses are demon possession which they consider to be quite a distinctive thing.
-
yes American religion and irreligion is a bit of jamboree isn't it.
Mainstream Christian denominations don't believe all mental illnesses are demon possession which they consider to be quite a distinctive thing.
Belief in demons is crazy in this day and age, I don't think we have any in captivity have we?
-
And you have seen someone possessed of a demon have you? :o
Have you?
You ask stupid questions... What do you think stopped the person being possessed?
You see the bible talks about demon possession. What epilepsy stops when demons cast out?
Do you really need everything spelling out for you? Can you not reason anything through for yourself?
-
We know that know. Jesus apparently didn't.
So now he cured epilepsy? Well! you appear to know what Jesus did and did not do.
Do you think he could not tell the difference between a fit and demonic possession?
Either way you are saying he cured epilepsy or even the truth cast out demons.
-
There is perhaps one small problem with the NIV in these verses. It quotes the father as saying that his son had 'seizures'. In fact the literal translation would be that he was 'moonstruck'. Both the old KJV and the modern NASB translate this as, 'he is a lunatic'. Not a very politically correct word to use today but 'moonstruck' was a general term to imply mental health problems. Certainly in Jesus' time those manifesting epileptic symptoms would been considered as moonstruck and many attributed this to demon possession. Clearly this was the father's understanding of his son's underlying problem.
But you are misinterpreting these verses if you conclude that Jesus linked epilepsy to demon possession. There is nothing in the text to justify such a conclusion. Nowhere does Jesus make such a connection. In fact the Scriptures make a very clear distinction between those who are 'moonstruck' and those who problems are the result of demon possession. The father's words are a reflection of his personal understanding but nowhere is this endorsed by Jesus.
It is always worth considering what 'the beloved physician' Luke has to say in instances where sickness and healings are covered. Luke's medical background is always clear in such instances. In his parallel account Luke makes absolutely no mention of the boy being 'moonstruck'. He simply records the father as telling Jesus that a spirit seizes his son leading to these manifestations. With his medical hat on Luke recognizes quite clearly that the problem here is not a mental health one but a spiritual one. So, while he probably had access to Matthews Gospel (as would many of his readers), in order to give clarity to his readers Luke is careful to place the diagnosis in its correct medical perspective. This is not a boy afflicted by epilepsy, he has a deep seated spiritual problem which Jesus deals with decisively by casting the demon out.
Matthew 17:14-21King James Version (KJV)
14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,
15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
Cured he was.... The devil rebuked and he departed out of him.
Now no one saying epilepsy is demonic possession.
-
Have you?
You ask stupid questions... What do you think stopped the person being possessed?
You see the bible talks about demon possession. What epilepsy stops when demons cast out?
Do you really need everything spelling out for you? Can you not reason anything through for yourself?
Just because something is in the Bible doesn't automatically make it true when it isn't remotely credible like demonic possession.
-
So now he cured epilepsy? Well! you appear to know what Jesus did and did not do.
No; I'm simply taking the alleged report of alleged events at face value. There's absolutely no demonstration or acceptance that a scrap of it is true.
Do you think he could not tell the difference between a fit and demonic possession?
No. Ignorant man, ignorant times.
Either way you are saying he cured epilepsy or even the truth cast out demons.
No I'm not. Let's try it one more time: I'm simply taking the alleged report of alleged events at face value. There's absolutely no demonstration or acceptance that a scrap of it is true.