Would you question Yahweh's existence if a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or someone of a different faith made similar claims as yours? If they told you they worked in a religious setting for their own gods, and their patients seemed to heal miraculously, would you believe their gods to be the masterminds? And how do you know you witnessed miracles? How do you know those people wouldn't have been healed in a secular setting?
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi Phil, I think your post will be the last one I respond to this evening.
You misunderstand. I am not rejecting belief in God because I don't understand how the universe was formed. Questions about the universe never caused me to lose my faith in the first place. I am only saying that not understanding how the universe formed is not sufficient reason to turn to a supernatural explanation. That is simply plugging God into the holes in our understanding. I am sure you have heard of the God of the Gaps argument. Neil de Grasse Tyson has a wonderful rebuttal.
I first heard of Pascal's Wager some years ago when it was introduced to me by a Christian who went by the name of GeneralHavok. He was particularly knowledgeable in the subject of philosophy. So yes, I know it: Believe in God and there is no harm done if God does not exist; don't believe in God and suffer eternal damnation if God does exist. It is more prudent then to believe in God. The problem is I can't just choose to believe in something for which I see no evidence. Could you choose to believe in fairies if those who did believe in them presented you with a claim that promised some reward in the afterlife if you would submit to belief? Do you see the problem? We can't flick a switch and make ourselves believe something that we don't believe.
I think Christians present Pascal’s Wager for atheists to consider because they misunderstand how we became atheists in the first place. They seem to think that most of us just woke up one morning and decided not to believe in God anymore. If that’s what we did then believing again is just a simple matter reversing the decision.
Loss of faith is a process that often takes years, and sometimes it sneaks up on us unawares, as it did with me. In my case the awareness that I had become an atheist came upon me suddenly and unexpectedly. It was not something I chose, and it is not something I can reverse by flicking a switch.
You misunderstand. I am not rejecting belief in God because I don't understand how the universe was formed. Questions about the universe never caused me to lose my faith in the first place. I am only saying that not understanding how the universe formed is not sufficient reason to turn to a supernatural explanation. That is simply plugging God into the holes in our understanding. I am sure you have heard of the God of the Gaps argument. Neil de Grasse Tyson has a wonderful rebuttal.
I first heard of Pascal's Wager some years ago when it was introduced to me by a Christian who went by the name of GeneralHavok. He was particularly knowledgeable in the subject of philosophy. So yes, I know it: Believe in God and there is no harm done if God does not exist; don't believe in God and suffer eternal damnation if God does exist. It is more prudent then to believe in God. The problem is I can't just choose to believe in something for which I see no evidence. Could you choose to believe in fairies if those who did believe in them presented you with a claim that promised some reward in the afterlife if you would submit to belief? Do you see the problem? We can't flick a switch and make ourselves believe something that we don't believe.
I think Christians present Pascal’s Wager for atheists to consider because they misunderstand how we became atheists in the first place. They seem to think that most of us just woke up one morning and decided not to believe in God anymore. If that’s what we did then believing again is just a simple matter reversing the decision.
Loss of faith is a process that often takes years, and sometimes it sneaks up on us unawares, as it did with me. In my case the awareness that I had become an atheist came upon me suddenly and unexpectedly. It was not something I chose, and it is not something I can reverse by flicking a switch.
P
Actually I hadn't heard of God of the Gaps, but I will read it, and I have no idea how or why you became atheist, nor does it matter to this discussion. You are, I'm not, and Pascal just had an interesting way of looking at it, IMO. I think you are intelligent enough that, if presented with reasonable substance for His existence, you will consider it. That is my only intention. To find something that will make you reconsider your position. If I am right and you are wrong, you are aware of the implication, and there is no need for me or anyone to continually bash you over the head with the "you're going to hell" chant.
A
You've obviously never taken much, if any, anthropology or you would know how to apply the scientific method in that context which, by the way, is the appropriate context for this challenge (not a double blind study).
And that is true regardless of the "religion" you are investigating for supernatural healing. In this case, we have already specified that we are discussing supernatural healing within a genuine Christian context with the God of the Bible as the causer and I have already given you everything you need to go and see if you can duplicate the results of my own investigation.
If you choose not to, then you have made a deliberate choice not to seek to duplicate my observations (and note that you would have to seek to duplicate them correctly) which I assert are factually true.
That would, of course, call your integrity into question for you would be then making the false assertion that I am not telling the truth while simultaneously refusing to properly attempt to replicate my observations.
Of course, you may attempt whatever anthropological investigation in whatever setting you wish to but having never attempted any whatsoever: I don't see that you're in a position to have anything more than an opinion.
I am an educated person who knows what a miracle is. A miracle is an event brought about by a special act of God. That is exactly what I experienced and witnessed.
Your last question is silly. Of course God can choose to heal someone in a secular setting. I never said that He could not or would not. If you can get God to tell you in advance the name, date, and time that He is going to heal someone in a secular setting in your locale in advance, I suppose you could travel to the location and witness one for yourself in a secular setting. I've never tried it.
What I do know is that God is at work healing supernaturally in genuine healing rooms (not to be confused with counterfeits or the devil's occultism) often through people whom He has imparted the gift of healing to so using common sense, that would be a good starting point to begin an investigation in.
And that is true regardless of the "religion" you are investigating for supernatural healing. In this case, we have already specified that we are discussing supernatural healing within a genuine Christian context with the God of the Bible as the causer and I have already given you everything you need to go and see if you can duplicate the results of my own investigation.
If you choose not to, then you have made a deliberate choice not to seek to duplicate my observations (and note that you would have to seek to duplicate them correctly) which I assert are factually true.
That would, of course, call your integrity into question for you would be then making the false assertion that I am not telling the truth while simultaneously refusing to properly attempt to replicate my observations.
Of course, you may attempt whatever anthropological investigation in whatever setting you wish to but having never attempted any whatsoever: I don't see that you're in a position to have anything more than an opinion.
I am an educated person who knows what a miracle is. A miracle is an event brought about by a special act of God. That is exactly what I experienced and witnessed.
Your last question is silly. Of course God can choose to heal someone in a secular setting. I never said that He could not or would not. If you can get God to tell you in advance the name, date, and time that He is going to heal someone in a secular setting in your locale in advance, I suppose you could travel to the location and witness one for yourself in a secular setting. I've never tried it.
What I do know is that God is at work healing supernaturally in genuine healing rooms (not to be confused with counterfeits or the devil's occultism) often through people whom He has imparted the gift of healing to so using common sense, that would be a good starting point to begin an investigation in.
P
I suppose, since it is there, there are people that actually believe something like "God of the Gaps". Doesn't come close to fitting me. I believe in God because my upbringing taught me He is, and that led to personal experiences that He actually demonstrated His power to me in.
Not only do I not say: "I don't know how it works, but I know God did it, so that's good enough for me", but I say, how did God do that? I want to know how He works. How His power can do what He is able to do. As I have said, there is no such thing as magic. Everything has an explanation. Cause and effect for everything. I believe that in a limited physical body, in a limited physical world, we simply don't have the capacity to understand the things we seek to know.
Not only do I not say: "I don't know how it works, but I know God did it, so that's good enough for me", but I say, how did God do that? I want to know how He works. How His power can do what He is able to do. As I have said, there is no such thing as magic. Everything has an explanation. Cause and effect for everything. I believe that in a limited physical body, in a limited physical world, we simply don't have the capacity to understand the things we seek to know.
A
Certainly; however, an atheist can choose to consistently put themselves in places where God is asserted to be working with people asserting that God is working in their midst (e.g. to seek God) providing the opportunity, if He is, to observe and experience God at work for themselves which, of course, can dispel the unbelief of atheism.
You're making a choice not to.
You're making a choice not to.
G
if you are right, saying there is no God, ok you just die. If you are wrong you go to hell and suffer for ever and ever. Please keep an open mind about God, creation and Jesus. If you ask Jesus to be your Lord, and repent, you go to Heaven for eternity. THIS IS IMPORTANT. YOU DONT WANT TO SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL. God does not want you to, I don't want you to. I want to see you in Heaven
A
Nothing. It's in the Bible. You're projecting things at me that I never said. I merely shared my own experiences and observations. I've never asked for elders to come to my location and anoint me with oil and lay hands on me. I've also never been present when that's occurred. But I HAVE attended a genuine healing room once a week for a year and that I can speak on. Don't read into my posts that which I never communicated. Peace.
A
Read this: What is Wrong with Pascal's Wager?
Note:
"The problem with Pascal's wager is that the assumption that belief in God is sufficient to get one into heaven is false. Demons believe and are condemned. An intellectual belief simply in God's existence is not sufficient for entry into heaven. One must agree with God and accept His terms for salvation. After all, heaven is a place where we voluntarily give up our "right" to sin, to spend eternity with the Holy One, who will turn us into perfect creatures because of our commitments made on earth. However, if you are living your life based upon pretending to believe in God to escape from hell, this is not a good wager, since God will not accept pretense as a substitute for true faith."
And that's from a purely Christian perspective. Atheists have a different one. Which makes it, I think, important to differentiate between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true as William Lane Craig pointed out in 'Reasonable Faith."
As a quick example, Dodwell and Plantinga state that one way we know Christianity is true is through the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit... the experience of which is veridical and unmistakable allowing one to know and know with confidence that they are experiencing the Spirit of God as they are experiencing God himself.
As Craig states:
"Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence.
The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith; as Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding.
A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit’s witness, but it does not serve as the basis of his belief. If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are successful, then Christian belief is warranted by such arguments and evidences for the person who grasps them, even if that person would still be warranted in their absence.
Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief, in the sense that he enjoys two sources of warrant."
So yes, it's accurate to point out that given the human predicament of being cast into existence and facing either eternal annihilation or eternal wrath, the only reasonable course of action (if the God of the Bible is real and true) is to believe in and follow the God of the Bible correctly: “for if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”
However, remember who your audience is. You're talking with people void of the first source of warrant and arguing with you about the second.
Just saying.
Note:
"The problem with Pascal's wager is that the assumption that belief in God is sufficient to get one into heaven is false. Demons believe and are condemned. An intellectual belief simply in God's existence is not sufficient for entry into heaven. One must agree with God and accept His terms for salvation. After all, heaven is a place where we voluntarily give up our "right" to sin, to spend eternity with the Holy One, who will turn us into perfect creatures because of our commitments made on earth. However, if you are living your life based upon pretending to believe in God to escape from hell, this is not a good wager, since God will not accept pretense as a substitute for true faith."
And that's from a purely Christian perspective. Atheists have a different one. Which makes it, I think, important to differentiate between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true as William Lane Craig pointed out in 'Reasonable Faith."
As a quick example, Dodwell and Plantinga state that one way we know Christianity is true is through the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit... the experience of which is veridical and unmistakable allowing one to know and know with confidence that they are experiencing the Spirit of God as they are experiencing God himself.
As Craig states:
"Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence.
The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith; as Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding.
A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit’s witness, but it does not serve as the basis of his belief. If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are successful, then Christian belief is warranted by such arguments and evidences for the person who grasps them, even if that person would still be warranted in their absence.
Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief, in the sense that he enjoys two sources of warrant."
So yes, it's accurate to point out that given the human predicament of being cast into existence and facing either eternal annihilation or eternal wrath, the only reasonable course of action (if the God of the Bible is real and true) is to believe in and follow the God of the Bible correctly: “for if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”
However, remember who your audience is. You're talking with people void of the first source of warrant and arguing with you about the second.
Just saying.
Men were a lot smarter than give them credit. There are many things that they did that we don't understand how they did them. Pyramids, Viking Swords, Easter Island heads, blah, blah, blah. There are theories and we can do some of it with modern technology, but we don't know how they did it. I watched a documentary that said that a pyramid (Giza, or something - don't quote me on the name) was lined up with some energy field or something and that they may have been using it to make electricity (It was not a biblical doc.). Apparently they knew a lot.
I pulled this off a Daily Bible Study site.
Daniel's Statue
What Did King Nebuchadnezzar See?
The head of gold is easy to understand - the Bible narrative itself clearly states (Daniel 2:36-38) that it represents the Babylonian kingdom (see Ancient Empires - Babylon) under King Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Jerusalem and carried the Jews, including the prophet Daniel himself, off into captivity (see Why Babylon?).
What about the rest of it? This is not difficult, the facts of history are very clear.
After the Babylonian "head of gold" came the Persian empire. The Persians under their various kings, including Cyrus (who allowed the people of Judah to return to Jerusalem in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah) swept away the Babylonian empire in 536 B.C. They are the "chest and arms of silver" (see Ancient Empires - Persia).
After about 2 centuries of dominance, the Persian empire was swallowed up by the Greeks under Alexander the Great. Many consider Alexander to be the greatest military commander of all time, taking vast areas from southern Europe, across the Middle East and deep into southern Asia, all while a relatively young man. He died in his early thirties of natural causes. The Greeks became the "belly and thighs of bronze" (see Ancient Empires - Greece).
After the Greeks came the Romans, the "legs of iron." The Romans took the areas that the Greeks had, plus nearly all of the rest of Europe, including Britain. The Roman empire was of course dominant during the time of the New Testament (see Ancient Empires - Rome).History records that the Roman empire "fell" in the fifth century after Christ, a "mortal wound" to the political empire, just as it suffered a "mortal wound" to its religious empire in the time of Martin Luther a thousand years later, but it obviously recovered from both because Bible prophecy plainly says that both will exist on the day of Christ's return
JesusLives
Cyrus was named several hundred years before he took over Babylon for the Medes and Persians and how did he do it? Just as the bible says below Cyrus diverted the water supply that was going into the city of Babylon and someone had forgotten to lock the gates in the water and that is exactly how he got in and conquered Babylon - but God said Cyrus would do it before it happened as recorded in the Bible.
Isaiah 45
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
45 “Cyrus is my anointed king.
I take hold of his right hand.
I give him the power
to bring nations under his control.
I help him strip kings of their power
to go to war against him.
I break city gates open so he can go through them.
I say to him,
[SUP]2 [/SUP]‘I will march out ahead of you.
I will make the mountains level.
I will break down bronze gates.
I will cut through their heavy iron bars.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]I will give you treasures that are hidden away in dark places.
I will give you riches that are stored up in secret places.
Then you will know that I am the Lord.
I am the God of Israel.
I am sending for you by name.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Cyrus, I am sending for you by name.
I am doing it for the good of the family of Jacob.
They are my servants.
I am doing it for Israel.
They are my chosen people.
You do not know anything about me.
But I am giving you a title of honor.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]I am the Lord. There is no other Lord.
I am the one and only God.
You do not know anything about me.
But I will make you strong.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Then people will know there is no God but me.
This is but one prophecy where part has been fulfilled but the last part stone cut without hands crushing the feet is representative of Jesus second coming and that has not happened yet.
Daniel's Statue
by Wayne Blank
In the prophetic book of Daniel (see Prophecy and By The Book) we read of a dream that an ancient Babylonian king had of a great image. The meaning of the dream was made known by God (Daniel 2:23) through the prophet Daniel. The image represented a preview of humanity's worldly kingdoms from ancient times right to The Return Of Jesus Christ.
What Did King Nebuchadnezzar See?
"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them [see Gone With The Wind]: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2:31-35 KJV)
God Interprets The Vision"This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king."
"Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold."
"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth."
"And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise."
"And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.""And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." (Daniel 2:36-45 KJV)
The Actual Flow Of History"Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold."
"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth."
"And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise."
"And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.""And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." (Daniel 2:36-45 KJV)
The head of gold is easy to understand - the Bible narrative itself clearly states (Daniel 2:36-38) that it represents the Babylonian kingdom (see Ancient Empires - Babylon) under King Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Jerusalem and carried the Jews, including the prophet Daniel himself, off into captivity (see Why Babylon?).
After the Babylonian "head of gold" came the Persian empire. The Persians under their various kings, including Cyrus (who allowed the people of Judah to return to Jerusalem in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah) swept away the Babylonian empire in 536 B.C. They are the "chest and arms of silver" (see Ancient Empires - Persia).
After about 2 centuries of dominance, the Persian empire was swallowed up by the Greeks under Alexander the Great. Many consider Alexander to be the greatest military commander of all time, taking vast areas from southern Europe, across the Middle East and deep into southern Asia, all while a relatively young man. He died in his early thirties of natural causes. The Greeks became the "belly and thighs of bronze" (see Ancient Empires - Greece).
After the Greeks came the Romans, the "legs of iron." The Romans took the areas that the Greeks had, plus nearly all of the rest of Europe, including Britain. The Roman empire was of course dominant during the time of the New Testament (see Ancient Empires - Rome).History records that the Roman empire "fell" in the fifth century after Christ, a "mortal wound" to the political empire, just as it suffered a "mortal wound" to its religious empire in the time of Martin Luther a thousand years later, but it obviously recovered from both because Bible prophecy plainly says that both will exist on the day of Christ's return
JesusLives
Cyrus was named several hundred years before he took over Babylon for the Medes and Persians and how did he do it? Just as the bible says below Cyrus diverted the water supply that was going into the city of Babylon and someone had forgotten to lock the gates in the water and that is exactly how he got in and conquered Babylon - but God said Cyrus would do it before it happened as recorded in the Bible.
Isaiah 45
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
45 “Cyrus is my anointed king.
I take hold of his right hand.
I give him the power
to bring nations under his control.
I help him strip kings of their power
to go to war against him.
I break city gates open so he can go through them.
I say to him,
[SUP]2 [/SUP]‘I will march out ahead of you.
I will make the mountains level.
I will break down bronze gates.
I will cut through their heavy iron bars.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]I will give you treasures that are hidden away in dark places.
I will give you riches that are stored up in secret places.
Then you will know that I am the Lord.
I am the God of Israel.
I am sending for you by name.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Cyrus, I am sending for you by name.
I am doing it for the good of the family of Jacob.
They are my servants.
I am doing it for Israel.
They are my chosen people.
You do not know anything about me.
But I am giving you a title of honor.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]I am the Lord. There is no other Lord.
I am the one and only God.
You do not know anything about me.
But I will make you strong.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Then people will know there is no God but me.
This is but one prophecy where part has been fulfilled but the last part stone cut without hands crushing the feet is representative of Jesus second coming and that has not happened yet.
