I don’t believe you when you say you have “literally seen a blind boy healed in front of you”. You are lying to yourself and everyone else when you say. I think you want to believe it happened.

This is just like Benny Hinn claiming he can heal people through the TV screen and then asking for $39.95 for his latest book.

Please don’t be so pathetic.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

You wrote this:

attempts to establish common ground in a love for common principles (the glory of Germany for instance) and subsequently attempts to compromise bit-by-bit until we are dedicated fascists who will fight for “Deutschland Uber Alles!” So to get to the point he is trying to take me away and lead me far from my current fundament.

Does Christianity not do the same thing? Do you not think the common ground in a love for an intangible omnipresent being and the common principles (the glory of God for instance) and subsequent attempts to compromise bit-by-bit until we are all dedicated christians who will fight for “Gott über alles!” So to get to the point he (christianity) is trying to take me away and lead me from my current fundament. Ok I think you get the point.

So you claim you are well aware of this “technique” and yet you fall willingly for it with christianity.

I staggers me that you cannot see the direct correlation between your own behaviour and that of Hitler in the way you tenaciously put your belief system above all else and use it to justify your fanatical world view.

In reading your post the words of the great Maynard James Keenan came to mind for me:

Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

This site cannot be the work of the devil as the devil does not exist. However let us assume for a second that he does, I believe the bible clearly states that in god is all things and therefore the creation, maintanence, the production, the idealogies, cognitvie process behind the posts put forward as well as the conflict itself is a product of god and therefore it is in fact god who is behind the site. That is the site is the work of god.

Don’t worry though god works in mysterious ways, so mysterious not even he/she has any idea what they’re doing. As neither do you apparently because blaming a fictional embodiment of all that is bad for the actions of human beings is indicative of larger systemic problems with our society.

Like or Dislike: 2  1

Like or Dislike: 1  1

You demonstrate the way in which circumstance can easily shape belief by suggesting the child you saw “healed” was somehow related to God. This event, in your mind, immediately validated your idea of God – not the aforementioned Krishna or Allah or Zeus or Baal etc. I would be asking myself why.

How do you arrive at this conclusion with this much accuracy?

How would you explain the myriad of personal experiences in every other religion?

Or in secular society? Are they all “of Satan”? Are they all deluded?

Your options are either to disregard their claim (“they’re lying”) or to say it was your God who healed the other – and surely both parties will be attempting this!

You can’t ignore the problems I present with Christianity just because there are “miracles”. Your concept of “miracles” are only valid if the Christian God exists and given your response, you have taken God’s existence and the Bible’s divine-authorship for granted; as you have failed to address any of the issues raised.

The sub-text of your ‘plea-to-the-miraculous’ seems to be: “who cares about the glaring contradictions, immorality and the anti-scientific nonsense: they are all irrelevant because miracles happen!” This is a little like saying, there are X amount of problems with aliens existing, but sometimes there are unexplained lights in the sky: therefore there are martians!

Finally, I do agree that sometimes “things happen” that appear unexplainable. However, the suggestion that “science of the gaps” points to God being the explanation is absurd. This illogical statement demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of science and utterly fails to differentiate the unexplained and the unexplainable. For the ultimate goal of science is to explain these gaps; in contrast to God, who not only fails to explain the gaps – but relies on them for his very existence!

Like or Dislike: 1  0

This site is the work of the devil himself.

It is so sad that you have fallen so far from the truth you once had. It is worrying to see how easily you have ‘jumped ship’ from believing a “false doctrine” to believing in something else with as much eagerness and wholeheartedness as always. The books you have mentioned I have read many times and as usual, it is the same circular reasoning as there always has been. You call it God of the Gaps, I call is science of the gaps. What science does wrong is it views the world with the assumption that EVERYTHING is natural and within our understanding. This worldview has many pitfalls and allows scientists to make bold statements without having any moral or spiritual framework to set themselves within. There are things that science will never be able to understand.

I have literally seen a blind boy healed right in front of me. Mass hysteria you ask? The boy was 4 years old. He did not know what was going on. One minute his eyes were glazed and had a distance in them, the next minute there were pupils and he began touching things as he saw for the first time. What do you call that?

Are you really comfortable dismissing something of that nature?

If so, why?

I can’t answer why others are not healed, but miraculous and wondrous things can and do occur without logical explanations. Is this fair on those who don’t get healed? Perhaps not. But does this detract from hose who do? No.

If you’re OK with dismissing these things then fine. I think this RF place has made you bitter towards God. Approach him in a different manner, you may be surprised at what ‘spiritual’ awakenings you have.

Like or Dislike: 2  3

This is all very interesting. I think trying to use the Bible to prove the existence of God is ultimately futile. Simply because we have observed throughout history that interpreting scripture is entirely subjective. You could justify helping a lady across the street using scripture, and you could also justify bludgeoning that lady to death using scripture. People have used the Bible to do amazing and wonderful things, and they’ve used it to justify war and mass genocide.

My point is, using scripture to prove the existence of God or creation is essentially saying “Look! I have proof that creation is real, why? Because the Bible says so!” “Look!, I have proof that Jesus was the light that helped the plants grow, why? Because the Bible describes Jesus as light!”Can you really define these findings as evidence? Evolution has a number of logical facts and observable evidence which is hard to deny. As the RF member two posts above me has demonstrated, trying to disprove evolution requires arcane rhetoric, acute scientific “postulations” AND a reliance on the word of God. All you need to do to disprove creation is say “well, I don’t believe in the Bible, its full of contradictions, it makes no sense, therefore I can not use it as an evidence resource”. To this, chritians will say “I can prove the Bible is true because I spoke in toniges and I saw my mum healed of a sore back” or something along those lines. Again, is this evidnece of God? I could s
imply talk about the power of the mind, the placebo effect, mass hysteria leading to delusional behaviour etc etc To this, a christian would most likely get offended and inform me of the literal lake of fire that I will be spending all eternity in because my mind failed to allow me to have faith in something that seemed to require a switching off of the mind.

The christian argument is always circular. What makes me laugh is the way christians say “show me evidence, show me evidence!” Surely it should be the other way around “show me evidence of God, show me evidence of creation” Show me evidence of Gods love, Not just love, but Gods love. I’ve seen the biggest athiests do amazing things without Gid, what is the difference?

Like or Dislike: 4  1

It is an interesting idea; Jesus being the light that photosynthesized the plants.

The problem with this suggestion lies in the fact that every reference to God or Jesus being “light” in scripture is strictly allegorical; not literal. Taking the creation story in Genesis literally means the whole account is literal. You can’t pick and choose.

As previously stated, God is not “really” light in the same way the Good Samaritan didn’t “really” exist. You can’t back up a literal interpretation of Genesis (ie fact) with allegory or metaphor (ie analogy).

Like or Dislike: 2  0

lol or ever just thought do what the bible says dude

Like or Dislike: 0  2

Like or Dislike: 0  1