[rlfcl]

every example of faith healing, signs, etc i've ever come across has either been a hoax, unsourced, taken from historical sources whose accuracy is in question, or else explainable by natural causes.

as for coincidence, it's our minds that apply significance to them . for every time a "miraculous" coincidence occurs, there's a kajillion (estimate) times that it doesn't.

so that may be proof for you but i wouldn't call it proof in any sort of universally accepted sense.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I would like to hear some details of these healings, Monk. If you personally know people who have been restored by divine power, then I'm interested in why I've learned of it through an internet forum rather than the news headlines. Since this should be a huge story.

[cauthon]

@DM: It cannot, of course, be verified by repeating the process.

[sarlinspellweaver]

rlfcl;159910 said:

every example of faith healing, signs, etc i've ever come across has either been a hoax, unsourced, taken from historical sources whose accuracy is in question, or else explainable by natural causes.

as for coincidence, it's our minds that apply significance to them . for every time a "miraculous" coincidence occurs, there's a kajillion (estimate) times that it doesn't.

so that may be proof for you but i wouldn't call it proof in any sort of universally accepted sense.

I'll offer an example that doesn't fit into one of your categories, but with the following conditions:

1) I am not offering it as *proof* of my beliefs, and not expecting you to consider it as such. It's just an example to illustrate that while I believe you are correct about many instances of coincidence, miracles etc. I also believe you to be mistaken about others.

2) You can decide for yourself if I'm telling the truth or not - either accept this was how it happened, or believe me to be a liar; I'm not going to defend or argue it out, just simply because it isn't helpful.

-----

My aunt experienced something I can only describe as miraculous healing. Several years ago she had a condition in her arm (I'm afraid I don't know exactly what), which caused the bone to degrade/decay. It got to the point where the x-rays were showing that it had pretty much crumbled, and amputation was the only option left. On the same evening as that decision was made, some friends from my aunt and uncle's church came to their house, feeling compelled to pray for her. After a long night of prayer, her arm was healed. When she returned to the hospital, the x-rays showed that all the crumbling had disappeared, and where previously her arm had been knackered out, it was now restored. None of the doctors could offer any explanation, and simply could not conceive of how bone could effectively re-grow over night (short of being in a Harry Potter book I guess!).

Personally, I don't think miracles are overly common things, and I would tend to treat most accounts with scepticism. My understanding of miracles from a Christian perspective leads me to believe that they only ever occur to further enhance the glory of God. In the instance above, aside from the obvious benefits of avoiding amputation, my aunt's healing enabled them to witness to the doctors and hospital staff.

[D Man]

Cold Iron;159899 said:

Individual failings can be overcome, but they are always replaced, regardless of whether you take responsibility or not, and I'm not suggesting you don't. What I'm saying the story suggests we are not personally at fault for is our inability to ever be free from failings.

This is a great point. It can be resolved if there is flaw in the current standard perception of god. If god is viewed (in part) as kind of inner self/subconsciousness (over-simplification of a complex idea), then the implications of dissobeying god take on a different meaning. If obeying god is comparable to following your gut instinct, doing what you know to be right despite temptation etc, it can be seen as a valid, albeit vast, simplification of the human condition which does have real world implications and applications. But as I've said before, this is not in the scope of this thread and I'd rather you not pull me up on this point because it takes a long time to rationalise.

The mere act of posting these moster posts should indicate to you that i have thought this through. In no way am I claiming or would I ever claim that "the teachings of religion are a one-stop source for moral and behavioural guidance" or anything remotely like this. Also the attrocities committed in a gods name can usually be traced to political, rather than theological motivations, but thats a discussion for another thread.

It speaks quite well of you that you read that into it, but thats not what the story of Eden and the fall actually have to say. Theres nothing of deflecting blame in it, theres no peice of mind for us from it, and even if there was it would just encourage the same sort of syndrome as "I'm screwed up because my parents neglected me". That may be so, but saying things like that is shifting responsiblity for who or what you are on someone or something else means you arent in control of it and can never change or correct the percieved faults(s). The first thing modern psychology tells you to do is to accept your problems and take personal ownership of them. That act of taking control is the first part of solving whatever your problem is. The story of the fall tells us the opposite, that our faults are inherited and intrinsic and gives no imputus or power to people to correct the flaws we have as a result of our ancestors. That takes control of how we are away from us, negating the possibilty of change. I say again: extremely unhelpfull.

Quote

I was talking about forgiveness from others because they are also flawed and so know not to hold your failings against you. As a result of us all inheriting the curse.

Thats just more "Its not your fault really": removing peoples responsibilty for what they do gives the cart blanche to do anything they want. I can just see the court cases.

"On grounds of the common source of evil and its ubiquity in humanity, we the jury find the defendant not guitly, because really it was Eves fault and we're all flawed somehow anyway"

It doesnt really cut it, does it?

And on the God as subconscious/gut instinct: I think theres some truth in that. That ultimately the 'voice of God' has nowhere to come from but your own head, and many religious people are just following their own instincts (as re-shaped by religious teaching) on any given matter. The flexibility in interpretation of religious texts allows a believer to act in many different ways and still rationalise what they do in terms of their chosen scripture. I've seen trivial examples happen right infront of me: religious people I know have made the decisions they claim God wanted them to, when it was blatently obvious to the outside observer in the build up to the decision that that was actaully what they personally wanted to do, and they used their belief to allow them to do it with a degree of impunity (because the unassailability of religious convinction due to the excessive respect it gets).

More seious illustrations of this would be the difference between a christian that does regular charity work and one that bombs abortion clinics, or a mulsim that unreservedly advocates peace and one that flies a plane into a building.

Given such dichotomy in the behaviour of people of the same religion, you really have to question just how compelling or valuable, or even how clear and universally understandable the moral and social teachings they have to offer are.

[sarlinspellweaver]

D-Man: There are undoubtedly occasions where "God" is used to justify something that somebody wishes to do, and of these occasions there are not a small number where the action that is justified is abhorent to most other human beings (persecution etc.).

Christianity, though, is explicit in its understanding that what God asks us to do may very well not be what we wish. It is hard to move away from the fact that Christ was pretty specific about wealth for example: I as a Christian should be giving up my excess riches to the poor, should be placing others above myself, should be living a pure life that is not marred by any selfish action that serves only my lusts. The fact is, that I often do not do what God wishes me to do, and in my personal experience it's when I fail to follow God that I harm others and myself.

The Fall as an analogy helps me to understand this: humans to some degree have a natural inclemency to want to serve their own needs first, and to put themselves above others. Watch any group of young children at play, and pretty soon you'll see that more often than not, they squabble over the toys they want to play with: even the kids from families where "sharing" values etc. are rigourously upheld. This can be seen as an example of how humans are inherently selfish, even before they have consciously been taught to "sin" by society; although, if understood in an evolutionary context, it is also an example of social dynamics emerging with children trying to establish their relative status.

We are biological creatures who want to gain the maximum chances for survival for ourselves and our offspring (cf Richard Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" theory). But whether you see the cause of most human's inherent selfishness as the product of Eden or the pressures of natural selection, believers and non-believers alike tend to venerate fictional and real people who sacrifice their own desire for others. It is no coincidence that the archetypal hero must give up something for what they love. Civilisation and society often upholds the ideals of living for the benefit of a wider group of people rather than just self.

Again, what we venerate as good can be as much the product of our inherent God-made spirituality seeking what is right, or an attempt by a number of creatures to enhance their chances of survival through teamwork. Perhaps it could be both?

I honestly don't have any strong views as to whether Creationism or Evolutionism is "right". Personally, I think they provide different explanations for the same traits that can be observed in virtually every human. Not being either a scientist or theologian, whether man came from monkeys or a mound of dirt makes little difference to my daily life - but how I and others around me behave does. I also think that it is possible for both ideas to be valid - although obviously in very different ways. It is impossible (I guess - maybe I'm wrong though) for both to be literally correct: either we evolved or we didn't. But, to my mind, the accounts need not be contradictory in what they can teach us about humanity.

[Darkwatch]

Just to annoy potsherds

If the theory of gravity is so solid then what is the gravity force carrier, and why havn't they been able to find it? And why is it so hard to insert into the unified field theory?
Certainly a theory with such important holes cannot be considered credible? Or at the very least we should teach some sort of alternative to gravity.
Also are there not theories advanced about whether or not gravity is a push or pull? (And yes I have heard of some people a few years back who brought this up as their research thesis).

I must say with all this doubt I cannot side with you in saying gravity is a solid theory that can be taught as truth.

[Cold Iron]

May I start by saying this is awesome. This is the exact reason I love this place. This forum (with a few notable exceptions) has almost no frustratingly stupid people! I'm sure I don't need to tell you all how rediculously rare that is. Now, with that said, lets all put our egos back in our pants and carry on.

D Man said:

It speaks quite well of you that you read that into it, but thats not what the story of Eden and the fall actually have to say.

In one sentence you manage to both admit that the story is open to interpretation and assert that your interpretation is the correct one. We'll make a fundy (thanks for that word, sherds) out of you yet! Also, either the story places blame on us for the sins of our ancestors or places our sins on them, you can't claim both!

Quote

And on the God as subconscious/gut instinct: I think theres some truth in that.

Thank you... Keep this idea in mind when I adress Sarlin's contri below.

Quote

Given such dichotomy in the behaviour of people of the same religion, you really have to question just how compelling or valuable, or even how clear and universally understandable the moral and social teachings they have to offer are.

Remember, some people who claim God's will, actually are doing what they think is right, and some aren't. This reflects nothing back on the religion itself.

sarlinspellweaver said:

Again, what we venerate as good can be as much the product of our inherent God-made spirituality seeking what is right, or an attempt by a number of creatures to enhance their chances of survival through teamwork. Perhaps it could be both?

Or, to use your words, our inherent "God-made spirituality" is a result of life's natural survival mechanism.... *cues twilight zone music*

Potsherds, I don't think this discussion has enough participants or momentum to start another thread, and please feel free to join in on any discussion, experienced or not, your opinion is always valid and welcome.

DW, three words that will shatter the very fabric of modern society (I'm assuming cold temperatures):

EINSTEIN
WAS
WRONG

[Dolorous Menhir]

Cold Iron;160582 said:

DW, three words that will shatter the very fabric of modern society (I'm assuming cold temperatures):

EINSTEIN
WAS
WRONG

I haven't been following all of this discussion, but I have to ask about this - what was Einstein wrong about? He said a lot of things.

[sarlinspellweaver]

Cold Iron;160582 said:

May I start by saying this is awesome. This is the exact reason I love this place.

Aww.... :angel:

Cold Iron;160582 said:

Or, to use your words, our inherent "God-made spirituality" is a result of life's natural survival mechanism.... *cues twilight zone music*

Depends where you start from. Start with the assumption that God is made up, and "spirituality" is an evolutionary development, start with the assumption that God is real, and "spirituality" is an intended end point in the creation process (which may also be evolution). I can't see a way around that one, but then again that may be more of a sign of my intellectual/theological failings.

And what's all this about Einstein? I have no idea what he was supposedly right about, so please do explain... (English students eh? )

[Cold Iron]

In regards to Einstein, I was just referring to DW's post about gravity...

I was trying to shatter your fabric. It worked.

Although, if I was disputing the validity of gravity, I suppose I should have gone back to Newton, Einstein is just so much more of a celebrity.

[Darkwatch]

And no one has yet to deal with the problems I brought up in my post. I will take this silence as evidence enough that these so called gravitationalist have very little to back up their statements. For obviously if they do not have the answers they must not exist and thus they are wrong.

-Darkwatch, bizarre anti-gravitationalist or incredible social commentator?

[stone monkey]

Actually Einstein was wrong about a lot of things...

Anyway being something of a literalist I've decided to try and answer Darkwatch's question about gravity... *deep breath*

The proposed force carrying particle (and we do all know that the word "particle" here is something of a misnomer, right? [which is one of the things Einstein was wrong about BTW]) for gravity is the graviton a massless, spin 2 particle. The reason it's not been found is that the energies at which it becomes apparent (unification energies with the other force carriers) are not, at present reachable by human built particle accellerators.

[Cold Iron]

As far as I'm aware, if CERN can't find the Higgs (or graviton), a lot of people are going to start questioning its existence.

Also, can whoever negative rep'ed me for my Einstein was wrong post step forward and contribute to the discussion? That was my first negative rep ever and I'm pissed off now. I have the right to face my accuser GODDAMNIT!

[Cause]

Is their not a lof of discussion that gravity may be just a curve in space.