The Religion Discussion

[crock101]

Discussion is always better than the route some people take to resolve their differences.

[nareshseep]

12799115_1067826413239291_8175289710769352020_n.jpg (24.2 KiB) Viewed 5449 times

[nareshseep]

Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian

10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 – You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!

6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”

3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.

2 – You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.


http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/01/to ... christian/

[crock101]

Zeus is a more believable God than yaweh . Zeus doesn't care about human well-being and it shows, seems consistent with the world as it is.
Yahweh allegedly claims to be caring, but evidence for that is sketchy at best.

[nareshseep]

[MD Marketers]

12801598_912185042233251_4782962226587776069_n.jpg

Common mistake when debating the existence of God.
Proving something isn't known to exist doesn't prove that it does not exist.
Technically we cannot truly prove anything on the spectrum of truth pass our own personal experience.
In other words we cannot prove objective reality.
Even a being that really is omniscient over all things can never truly know that they know all things.
There is always room for doubt.
God cannot even prove he is God to himself so how can we?

Everything you will every believe boils down to personal experience and interaction.
Religious people that have coincidentally been saved more times than statistically possible after praying will be justified in believing in a God and there is nothing wrong with this rationality. It's a very scientific approach.
Similarly an Atheist that never undergoes a spiritual awakening based on personal experience would be more inclined to scientific explanations fed to them in most cases by complete strangers with a certificate of superior intellect.

If you can't trust your own senses, why trust in someone else's senses?

Belief is something personal and we shouldn't try to force our personal experiences unto someone else that has never experienced it.
but:
By all means defend your personal experiences and beliefs as it is the foundation of who "YOU" are.

[crock101]

The problem with that rational is, where do you draw the line and accept facts from other people? Is it when your doctor tells you that you have a bacterial infection and you need to take antibiotics or when someone tells you not to jump off a cliff cause you will die or is it when a priest claims he can turn a cracker into part of a human body simply by saying some Latin words over it.
While your personal experiences will have be taken into account when making decisions ,you still have to work out who are the people that are really qualified to give instructions based on their intellectual superiority on a given topic.
We like to say that everybody is equal, while that may be true on the level of being alive,that is often not the case for mental capacity ,physical attributes and the very ability to recognize when someone is not being treated equally.
For someone to claim authority on a subject they need to be able to show that they do in fact possess the knowledge to which the claim.
In the area of religion many claims to authority are made , evidence to support these claims are somewhat limited.

[MD Marketers]

The problem with that rational is, where do you draw the line and accept facts from other people? Is it when your doctor tells you that you have a bacterial infection and you need to take antibiotics or when someone tells you not to jump off a cliff cause you will die or is it when a priest claims he can turn a cracker into part of a human body simply by saying some Latin words over it.
While your personal experiences will have be taken into account when making decisions ,you still have to work out who are the people that are really qualified to give instructions based on their intellectual superiority on a given topic.
We like to say that everybody is equal, while that may be true on the level of being alive,that is often not the case for mental capacity ,physical attributes and the very ability to recognize when someone is not being treated equally.
For someone to claim authority on a subject they need to be able to show that they do in fact possess the knowledge to which the claim.
In the area of religion many claims to authority are made , evidence to support these claims are somewhat limited.

As far as the decision making process is concerned:
It's more of an instinct than a cognitive rationalization. It's been proven that we make these decisions in the brain before we are even aware that a decision was required.
It's only when we try to rationalize personal experience and behavioral patterns that we try to lay claim to truth.
Finding an absolute truth through cognitive rationalization of evidence has never been achieved by science. If anything science only proves that the more we observe is the more questions we end up raising.

The line you are asking me about isn't drawn through cognitive rationalization but rather through personal experience that has been etched into our brains via years of evolution & our very own life experiences.

I wish it were true that we are cognitively rational beings when it comes to our belief system and our decision making process, but for the most part it's just our primal instinct that controls us. We are all just high functioning animals as far as biology is concerned.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to find the truth within a claim here (if that's what you were thinking). I'm merely explaining how belief systems & the decision making process works from the scientific perspective.

If I bombard a hardcore atheist with a number of inexplicable spiritual experiences which defy the laws of probability, there is a huge possibility it will result in a life changing epiphany that converts them back to some form of Theism.

In the same manner a Theist that has given their life to God is more likely to convert to Atheism if in their most desperate time of need all their prayers go unanswered & they begin to question if such a God could possibly exist.

P.S. There is no such thing as an Expert Authority in any given field as far as objective reality is concerned. It is purely subjective. We call people experts only because they possess more knowledge than the average man in a given field. If the average man suddenly became just as knowledgeable as the "experts" they would no longer be considered experts. The word Authority gives the impression that we must obey and not question these people if we do not fall within their class.
I can think of a number of instances where such thinking only leads humanity down a path of destruction & I for one do not succumb to being mentally chained.

[ruffneck_12]

700 pages later, and nothing was achieved.


The religious people still religious.
The atheists still atheist.
The agnostics still agnostic.


Go help some injured animals, clothe some homeless people, plant some MC tree.

Do things that ACTUALLY make a difference.

You seem to think talking means "doing".
It's an act of communication. It has nothing to do with "doing" except maybe the typing part.
If you are against communication then why did you join an online forum?
You use the word ACTUALLY to mean DIRECTLY.
What you are trying to say is:
"Do things that DIRECTLY make a difference"

By your own logic you would probably think going to school is somehow useless.
The act of going to school doesn't really make a difference until you put what you have learnt into action, but that does not mean going to school is useless and neither is this thread. Both are just not DIRECTLY useful.

Many have benefited from this thread, mostly the ones listening rather than talking.

Last line is the only thing that made sense , the rest was just hot air.

Good point tho. I en go lie

[York]

That's a very good point. The religious folks should look at what they do that make a difference, what their religion tells them to do and what the followers actually do.

[nareshseep]

6 Things Religion Can’t Explain


1. Where did God(s) come from?

This is an obvious one, and everyone knows it. Of the major current religions, only the Hindus have made any sort of attempt at addressing it through the concept of Brahman. Frankly, the Greeks and Norse religions did a better job of explaining this than do the self-proclaimed monotheisms. At least they (and a great many other religions) acknowledged a beginning before there were gods. Don’t expect anyone, even the Mormons or Scientologists who have their gods on an unidentifiable planet, to give you god’s address any time soon. Just saying that god “always was” seems a poor use of human imagination.

2. Why does God(s) care about humans?

OK, the Hindu gods don’t care so much, as they and we are all on the same wheel of reincarnation, and they are partially like many older religions where it’s a “you do this for me, and I will do this for you” sort of arrangement – at least when they are not off drinking soma. But with the monotheisms, you have to wonder why their god(s) bother. The Hebrew’s god loved the smell of burned animal flesh so, while there was a Temple around at which the sacrifices were made, YHWH got something out of the relationship. And in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda needs people as his ally against Angra Mainyu, almost in the same way as Odin needs heroes to fight with him at the final battle of Ragnarök. But the gods of Christianity and Islam don’t need soldiers, as its already pre-ordained that they will emerge victorious.

So why do gods care about humans? Because they want to be worshipped? They don’t have compassion for humans, since they send all non-believers (the vast majority of humans) to eternal suffering. So why save some at all? Please don’t say, “because they love us,” unless you can look a starving child in the face and tell her how the god who created her loves her so much that he is sending her to hell for eternity. Let’s face it, the best explanation is probably that the gods were bored and so humanity and all creation is the cosmological equivalent of a Sony PlayStation for a divinity.

3. Why is suffering allowed?

If the world is made by a perfect or all powerful or nearly all powerful god(s), then why is it so imperfect itself? If a divine being wanted to make a perfect place, say like heaven, why make an imperfect place like reality? If heaven is where you, as the diving being, want to spend all your time, why make anything else? Why put so many souls through a lifetime of suffering and then (in some cases) an eternity of torment? The only reason I can see is that a hell would be created so that god can watch and enjoy those who are suffering. Otherwise just annihilate them upon death (as some religions allow). Admittedly, for some religions, suffering is not created by the gods, but is a fundamental property of reality which all things endure (even gods) but it’s not everlasting (as in many sects of Hinduism and some Buddhist ones, where hell is like a summer camp to train you to do better in the next incarnation).

But even for those religions that have foregone the concept of an eternal punishment, or even any after-death punishment at all, the reason for suffering in life could, at best, be seen as a trial of humanity. But why do that? Why not make them the way you want them? Why create them imperfect, with desires to be suppressed? If you want human souls to be with you in some paradise, then put them there to begin with. As with hell, the only reason why a god would permit human suffering is to view it or to use it to judge them – which is itself a problem.

4. What does God(s) get out of giving humans free will?

Some religions claim that their god(s) is omniscient, and therefore there is no place for human free will. Free will is an illusion for humans, who are incapable of seeing their future. But for the relevant god(s), before the soul is even ensconced in a body, to know whether that soul will enjoy paradise or perdition it begs the question of why go through the exercise? But for those religions and doctrines that embrace free will, humans are given the chance to follow god(s) or not, to their benefit or detriment. Some doctrines try to get around this by saying that god might know the outcome, but he doesn’t interfere in a human’s choices, so there is both omniscience and free will. Presumably, this means that god is then not active in human affairs, sort of like the absent watchmaker of 18th Century European thought.

In any event, isn’t giving human’s free will sort of like gambling? Each human soul is a roll of the dice. Let’s see if this one goes to heaven or burns forever in hell. Let’s see if this one lives on a yacht eating caviar and enjoying all the sensuous pleasures that money can buy, while that one dies as a child in terrible agony from disease and malnutrition – with the former going to eternal bliss and the later going on for more and worse agony, all because of what they were fortunate enough to have believed. Unless you agree with the Zoroastrians and Norse that there is a purpose for humans in some future divine battle, then what is the point? It just seems like gambling to me, a curiosity about the unknown future. Human souls as sport for a bored divinity.

5. Why make human souls eternal?

If you’re divine and eternal and all powerful, why do you need to make anything else eternal? What would be the reason? Most human religions have had gods with families and friends who are also divine. The heavenly court looks remarkably like the kingly court on earth, with jealousies and affairs and sensualities, fears, angers and desires all similar to those of frail humans. But other religions strip their god(s) of these terrestrial emotions, and treat them as beyond human conception in terms of their motivations and desires. For many religions, especially tribal ones, even if gods created humans, the element of a soul is often an uncreated element of life or consciousness that is uncreated by the gods. Many religions imbued animals with this eternal spark as well as people.

But assuming that an eternal soul is not seen as an uncontrolled element of reality within which the god(s) operate, then why create something like this? Especially if most of them are destined for eternal punishment? If you’re a lonely divine being, you create angels. I’ll take a couple of Apsaras, please – Buddhist/Hindu Angels are soooo much better than the boring sword wielding, plague distributing angels of the monotheisms. I mean, don’t the angels in all their diversity offer enough entertainment? Why create immortal human souls? If you want to enjoy their exploits and see if they can meet your commandments, just give them 1,000 years of heaven after life. Surely that is still enough of an incentive, or even 10,000 or 100,000 years? Why eternity?

6. Why allow ignorance of yourself?

If you were god, and you wanted to test people to see if they lived according to your rules, wouldn’t it make sense to be sure that they knew what those rules were? If you’re going to play a game, it only works if both sides know the rules and what conditions constitute a victory or a failure. Now some religions don’t think this way. Many tribal religions only considered their beliefs to apply to themselves and other people had other gods, or no gods. Today, Judaism and Shinto and many Native American religions fall into this category. God is not really a universal god, as he/she/they are primarily concerned with just one tribe or group of people. So, the rules apply to them and not necessarily to others. These religions don’t tend to proselytize.

Hinduism and Chinese folk religions fall someplace in the middle, as they really have never developed a consistent attitude towards those who don’t follow their faith. For Hinduism, the belief is clearly that all humans, and animals for that matter, are part of the experience of reincarnation. But equating the position of foreigners into the concept of the caste system has been full of contradictory positions. For Chinese folk religions, including some elements of Taoism, you don’t need to believe so long as you make the correct propitiations. In other words, they will accept offerings from and answer the prayers of anyone. Many of the world’s remaining folk religions are similar. Gods in these religions are more interested in the outward signs of devotion or sacrifice than with reading the minds of humans (traditional Judaism is very much in this primitive vein as well, just look at the pages of descriptions on how to make sacrifices, how to dress, what to eat, when to work, etc.).

But if you were god, wouldn’t you want everyone to know? Why hide yourself for most of human history and then only make yourself known one time in one place to one group or people or even just one individual? Zoroaster and Muhammad fall into this category. Judaism used to ascribe its Torah to be the writings of one man, Moses (who, at least based on his depiction in the Torah, is clearly fictional). What is the reason for the modesty? Especially when people’s wellbeing and perhaps even eternal life is at risk, why not get the word out? Why condemn billions of people to endless torment simply because they never heard of you? What is the logic in this? Maybe there are some people you just don’t like? Is god a racist? Did he forget to tell everyone else because he didn’t like them? Because they weren’t worthy enough? Or was it just too far to go to Australia?

There are more than 6, I know. What ones have you used that have been effective with believers?

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/03/6- ... t-explain/

[playerskrew]

So what if aliens are real what then.
Does religion take a back seat?

[crock101]

Religion has no business being in the car ,much less the back seat.

[nareshseep]

7 Differences Between Religion And Spirituality




A lot of people mistake Spirituality for Religion or some mysterious, supernatural occurrence. Some even think of it as a sect but this is because of their lack of knowledge and their fear of being manipulated.

If we move past this and try to study and understand what spirituality actually is, we’ll come to a realization that it is nothing mysterious or supernatural nor in any way connected to a sect of any kind.

These 7 differences between Religion and Spirituality will help you understand what Spirituality actually is.

1. Religion Makes You Bow – Spirituality Sets You Free
Religion tells you to follow an ideology and obey certain rules or you’ll be punished otherwise. Spirituality lets you Follow Your Heart and What You Feel It’s Right. It sets you free to be what you truly are without bowing to anything that doesn’t resonate as right with you nor to anyone because we are all one. It is all up to you to choose what you’ll honor enough to make it divine

2. Religion Shows You Fear – Spirituality Shows You How to Be Brave
Religion tells you what to fear and tells you consequences. Spirituality makes you aware of the consequences but doesn’t want you to focus on the fear. It shows you How to Stand Despite Being Afraid, how to move on doing what you feel it’s right despite the consequences that may come. It shows you how to act on love and not on fear, it shows you how to control fear and use the best of it.

3. Religion Tells You The Truth – Spirituality Lets You Discover It
Religion tells you what to believe and what is right. Spirituality lets you discover it by yourself and understand it in your own unique way. It lets you Connect With Your Higher Self and see with your own mind what truth is because the truth as a whole is same for each one of us. It lets you believe in your own truth through your own perception of your heart.

4. Religion Separates from Other Religions – Spirituality Unites Them
Through our world there are many religions and they all preach that their story is the right story. Spirituality sees the truth in all of them and unites them because the truth is same for all of us despite our differences and uniqueness. It focuses on the quality of the divine message they share and not on the differences in details of the story they speak.

5. Religion Makes You Dependent – Spirituality Makes You Independent
If you attend religious events only then you are seen as a religious person and someone who is worthy of happiness. Spirituality shows you that you don’t need or depend on anything to be happy. Happiness is always found deep in ourselves and only we are responsible for it. We are always where we need to be and not just while attending at some events or buildings. Divinity is in us and that is why we are always worthy.

6. Religion Applies Punishment – Spirituality Applies Karma
Religion says that if we don’t obey certain rules there is punishment that awaits us which relies on our belief. Spirituality lets us understand that every action has its reaction and realize that the punishment of our actions will be the reaction coming from the actions we set in motion. It relies solely on the fundamental forces of The Universe and it doesn’t need you to believe in that force to be true.

7. Religion Makes You Follow Other's Journey – Spirituality Lets You Create Your Own
The foundation of one religion is the story it tells about a God or Gods, their journey to enlightenment and the truth they have discovered making you follow their steps. Spirituality lets you Walk Your Own Journey to Enlightenment and discover the truth in your own way following what your heart tells it’s right because the truth is always the same no matter how you get to it.

Every religion came by spirituality, by the journey through which one person became God. The details of the story are not important they just help the character discover the truth. The message that shares the truth is what is important, The Divine Code of The Human Heart that resonates harmoniously through each of us. That is why every religion has something true in it, the truth.


By Dejan Davchevski
- See more at: http://www.the-open-mind.com/7-differen ... Rc8jw.dpuf

[bluesclues]

dejan is noob. is not even spiritual. does not believe in the true spirit of life which is very much supernatural

[Habit7]

What happens when honest science gets sneaked into a reputable science journal...

Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore


A scientific paper on the anatomy of the human hand has been retracted by a leading scientific journal following criticism of references it made to a “creator”.

The paper, which was peer reviewed and published in the journal Plos One on 5 January, explored the link between the biomechanical architecture of the hand and its ability to coordinate movements.

But the paper sparked a furore in the scientific community because of its apparent underlying theistic message. The researchers claimed that “hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.”

Written by researchers from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China and Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, the study claimed the relationship between the anatomical structure of the hand and its ability to grasp objects is “the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.”

The sentiment is repeated both in the introduction of the article and at its end, where they conclude “our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodelling of the ancestral hand for millions of years.”

Despite cropping up in the article’s abstract, introduction and concluding discussion, the mention of a Creator apparently failed to set alarm bells ringing with peer reviewers - experts who read the scientific paper and recommended publication without querying or amending the passages.

The paper’s publication was met with a barrage of criticism online. “A paper on hand anatomy that contains anatomical inaccuracies and references a “Creator”. @PLOSONE I’m shocked!,” tweeted Professor Alice Roberts, anatomist, broadcaster and author of the Incredible Unlikeliness of Being, in one of the politer reactions.

“I was hoping this paper was a hoax,” wrote a commenter identifying themselves as Dr Raja Chatila on the Plos One site. Others were similarly angry. “As a scientist, as well as a Plos One academic editor and author I feel outraged by the publication of a ms [manuscript] making explicit reference to creationism,” commented Dr Danilo Russo. Anger and disappointment were rife, with some calling for a boycott of Plos One and others threatening to sever links with the journal. “There is no room in the scientific literature for Intelligent Design,” wrote a Dr Michael Sears under a post headed “Retract this article or I resign as an Editor.”

However, in a comment apparently from one of the paper’s authors, Ming-Jin Liu, the researchers claimed the meaning of their phrase had simply been lost in translation. “Our study has no relationship with creationism,” Liu wrote. “Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected.” According to Liu, the authors had merely picked the wrong word. “We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript,” he added.

Indeed some have been quick to condemn the journal for cultural insensitivity. “If it is a language problem, retraction is ridiculous. It only affects the authors when it was a journal’s failure,” tweeted Dr Ignacio Rubio Somoza, of the Centre for Research in Agricultural Genomics in Barcelona.

But in a statement posted on the journal’s website on 4 March, the editors indicated that it wasn’t simply a language issue that prompted the retraction.

“Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a ‘Creator’, and about the overall rationale and findings of the study,” it said, adding that the journal’s editors had looked into the manuscript and review process. “This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review. Consequently, the Plos One editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.”

Writing in the article’s comment section, a commenter identifying himself as Dr Steven Caruso wrote: “This failure in the peer review and editorial oversight of Plos One is very distressing, particularly to those of use with articles that have been published in Plos One as it may diminish the gravitas of those papers as the journals credibility itself is harmed.”Dr Gianluca Polgar was similarly concerned: “It is really difficult to imagine how this paper could ever be published,” he wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ter-furore

Secularists prefer to point the obvious intelligent design we observe as something amorphous as nature. As if that is an alternative.

[nareshseep]

You can judge your God, but we can't....

[Slartibartfast]

Looks more like when bad science gets sneaked into a reputable science journal. Like a lot of bad science it is redacted and could possibly hurt the journal's reputation.... oh wait...

What happens when honest science gets sneaked into a reputable science journal...

Writing in the article’s comment section, a commenter identifying himself as Dr Steven Caruso wrote: “This failure in the peer review and editorial oversight of Plos One is very distressing, particularly to those of use with articles that have been published in Plos One as it may diminish the gravitas of those papers as the journals credibility itself is harmed.”Dr Gianluca Polgar was similarly concerned: “It is really difficult to imagine how this paper could ever be published,” he wrote.

Lol.

[Habit7]

Care to tell us what is the "bad science" you identified?

[Slartibartfast]

Everything from your previous post that wasn't quoted. Did you even read the article?

[Habit7]

Just as I figured.

[meccalli]

“There is no room in the scientific literature for Intelligent Design,” wrote a Dr Michael Sears under a post headed “Retract this article or I resign as an Editor.”

No sweat.

[crock101]

ever notice how these faith healers always claim to cure people with all kinds of diseases , oddly amputees are never among those healed. you would think that curing cancer is arguably equally or even more impressive than re-growning a limb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

[MD Marketers]

ever notice how these faith healers always claim to cure people with all kinds of diseases , oddly amputees are never among those healed. you would think that curing cancer is arguably equally or even more impressive than re-growning a limb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

Habit7 would probably say you can't see the miracle because your not a Christian.
When you ask him to explain what he means, he will then quote some irrelevant verse from the bible.
When you point out how irrelevant it is he will then accuse you of shifting the goal post from where he had shifted it to, and then run away from the debate.

[nareshseep]

ever notice how these faith healers always claim to cure people with all kinds of diseases , oddly amputees are never among those healed. you would think that curing cancer is arguably equally or even more impressive than re-growning a limb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

Habit7 would probably say you can't see the miracle because your not a Christian.
When you ask him to explain what he means, he will then quote some irrelevant verse from the bible.
When you point out how irrelevant it is he will then accuse you of shifting the goal post from where he had shifted it to, and then run away from the debate.

Yup that is very typical of "open" minded religuous folks. They are "open" to only their indoctrinated beliefs and are always "correct"

[Slartibartfast]

You guys are clearly not being "honest" with yourselves. By honest I mean "in agreement with Habit's opinions" of course.

[Habit7]

ever notice how these faith healers always claim to cure people with all kinds of diseases , oddly amputees are never among those healed. you would think that curing cancer is arguably equally or even more impressive than re-growning a limb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

Habit7 would probably say you can't see the miracle because your not a Christian.
When you ask him to explain what he means, he will then quote some irrelevant verse from the bible.
When you point out how irrelevant it is he will then accuse you of shifting the goal post from where he had shifted it to, and then run away from the debate.

Yup that is very typical of "open" minded religuous folks. They are "open" to only their indoctrinated beliefs and are always "correct"

I dont endorse those videos.

which videos and why?

The videos djaggs post earlier. Briefly, I dont believe the signs and wonders gifts of the New Testament are operating today. While I believe God can work miracles today, I dont believe in "miracle workers."

But before you misunderstand me, this is a not essential doctrine in Christianity. I share fellowship with those who disagree with me in this area.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=7092033#p7092033

[crock101]

Habit .. tell me , why don't you believe in faith healing , don't you believe in the supernatural and supernatural occurrences, this should be right up your wheel house .

Does this mean that you think these faith healers are frauds and their "patients" are liars ? If that is the case ,then I am are in very strong agreement with you.

[1800GSRLANCER]

[nareshseep]

ever notice how these faith healers always claim to cure people with all kinds of diseases , oddly amputees are never among those healed. you would think that curing cancer is arguably equally or even more impressive than re-growning a limb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

Habit7 would probably say you can't see the miracle because your not a Christian.
When you ask him to explain what he means, he will then quote some irrelevant verse from the bible.
When you point out how irrelevant it is he will then accuse you of shifting the goal post from where he had shifted it to, and then run away from the debate.

Yup that is very typical of "open" minded religuous folks. They are "open" to only their indoctrinated beliefs and are always "correct"

I dont endorse those videos.

which videos and why?

The videos djaggs post earlier. Briefly, I dont believe the signs and wonders gifts of the New Testament are operating today. While I believe God can work miracles today, I dont believe in "miracle workers."

But before you misunderstand me, this is a not essential doctrine in Christianity. I share fellowship with those who disagree with me in this area.

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=7092033#p7092033

Thanks Habit7 for proving the point.