"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

You make some very relevant points and they are well taken. But surely your suggestion stifles debate and leaves no room for the evaluation of much at all. One side says true the other false and the debate ends with no more information or clarification on either side. If one's argument can only resort to insult, then that in itself might offer some information about the value of the point being put forward.

Not at all. In fact, it is detractions which help to ferret out better understanding. I have no problem with that. In fact I welcome it. I don't want you to get the idea that I think debate is pointless. But it's undue comparitives which serve no purpose other than to detract for detraction's sake.

As to categories, well yes you can compare a Porsche to a horse and buggy. You will see the likenesses and differences in order that advantages and disadvantages can be understood. Were someone insisting that a horse can go faster than a car and we should rely on that as fact, base our moral standards against that as fact, institutionalize that statement as fact, teach our children that as fact, insist to the world that is a fact, encourage society at large to exclude those who don't consider it to be fact, rely on all that as fact then say debate is pointless, seems to be very disadvantageous to everyone, in my view at least.

But at the very least, you can go out and test/falsify the H&B over Porsche claim. So here, your anology is disingenuous.

Whereas with abiogenesis v. creationism(6 literal days or 6 eras), you can't prove either. Yes, I know of some of the great strides towards abiogensis. But they are admittedly not suffcient to turn the speculation for abiogensis to a theory. In so many years, the idea may be dumped for another idea. Or may become definitive as scientist conduct an experiment whereby macro molecules exhibit life as we currently define it. Or maybe we'll find the signs of life where water once was somewhere in the solar system like on Mars or one of Jupiter's moon which has water under it's icy exterior. But that's the beauty of science. It evolves with more knowledge.

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:


But at the very least, you can go out and test/falsify the H&B over Porsche claim. So here, your anology is disingenuous.

Whereas with abiogenesis v. creationism(6 literal days or 6 eras), you can't prove either.

So are you really saying that things which you can't test/falsify, can only be compared for verification against themselves?!

Can't test/falsify God for existence means one must only test/falsify for God against itself?! How would that be anything but disingenuous?


Test/falsify the H&B and the Porsche and they are both kinds of transport, we agree. Test/falsify the Bible & Grimms and they are both kinds of fairy tale, yet we seem to disagree. I don't find it reasonable we agree on the first, but don't on the second, only because we can't go out and test/falsify the contents of both the second items . We didn't have to do that on the first items, then isn't it really disingenuous we should have to do so on the second .

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

So are you really saying that things which you can't test/falsify, can only be compared for verification against themselves?!

Can't test/falsify God for existence means one must only test/falsify for God against itself?! How would that be anything but disingenuous?

No I wouldn't dare put that forth.

Test/falsify the H&B and the Porsche and they are both kinds of transport, we agree. Test/falsify the Bible & Grimms and they are both kinds of fairy tale, yet we seem to disagree. I don't find it reasonable we agree on the first, but don't on the second, only because we can't go out and test/falsify the contents of both the second items . We didn't have to do that on the first items, then isn't it really disingenuous we should have to do so on the second .

We know for a fact that currently, we can't test/falsify the bible. No argument there. We first have to prove God exists. Whereas with the Porsche and H&B, since we already know they exist, we can test them. But that doesn't mean our comparisons will be useful or rational. Yes, they are both modes of transportation. But the speed comparison, or I should say acceleration comparison is unjustified. The means at which they accelerate is radically different. Even if one of the terms used to describe that power is called "horse power." Here is a case of apples to oranges. It's funny how that phrase somes up and is easily understood. Sure, they're fruits. But that's about it.

So, to make it simple. You compare apples to apples. Oranges to oranges. God stories to God stories. If you want to classify the bible as a myth, sure. But it stops there. You can't compare it to B. Grimm's tales as you would no less compare Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss.

 

[archimedes]

Quote from ddunbar:

Hmmm... really. Is that what you think miracles were for.

Paul - already believed in God. Was a high level member of the hebrew religious establishment. That clearly means the he was looking for a messiah. He just didn't believe Jesus was the actual messiah prophecied. But on the road to Damacus, as you refered, which is found in Acts 9, you don't see a process of one who starts to believe, but as one who acknowledges the truth when told it.

It's ok. Maybe you just don't know the bible.

'Paul' already believed? Don't you mean Saul -- the guy who was going around killing Christians? Before the road to Damascus, what was the difference between Saul and the other Pharisees? By the standard of legalistc judaism, didn't they 'already believe' too? If God had wanted to turn some other zealous pharisee into his main man, don't you think God could have succeeded in doing so? If God had chosen to make an apostle of Baal his disciple--which he could have done--would that have counted as faith too?

As for the apostles, they had doubts all along and continued to have doubts--after the nets and fish, the loaves and fishes, the raising of the dead, and so on, you STILL saw Peter deny Christ three times before the rooster crowed.

I was harsh in my reply because your claim--that 'knowledge' damns if it occurs before faith--was so arrogantly wrong and based on nothing. From within a scriptural perspective, there is nowhere where it says 'knowledge damns before faith.' You just made that up. There are, however, plenty of instances where belief comes after an eye-opening miracle occurs. Your qualification for Saul / Paul is especially weak. You say he "already believed," but believed in what? He was in the brood of vipers. You came up with this "knowledge damns" idea out of thin air. It is rank speculation. It is based on a false sense of distinction between evidence and faith that was never warranted.

The Calvinists vs Arminians contrast was more aimed at your statement, "So aksing [sic] for proof of the bible God and receiving it does nothing to improve your salvation status."

As far as the bible stands, salvation status is not a cut and dry thing in the least. Hypothetically speaking, how do people get saved? Meaning where does the faith supposedly come from? Do they generate the saving faith themselves, or is the faith generated for them by the holy spirit? The bible is not clear on this. There is the matter of being dead in trespasses and sins. There is the matter of Christ saying "no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). Lots of other verses too. There is also the question of how faith is sustained. Can someone lose their salvation? Again, the answer on that is not clear. Within the protestant church it is hotly debated.

The question of whether God is ultimately wholly responsible for man's salvation, from quickening to keeping as Calvinists believe, or whether there is some point at which man can initiate his own salvation but also lose it, which Arminians believe, is a major bone of contention. As stated before, the bible is not clear.

But again, your statement 'knowledge before faith is damning' is clearly not supported by any genuine theology or scriptural text. How can you presume to know what miracles are "for"? And the smugness with which you say proof does nothing for someone's salvation status speaks to your arrogance of things you do not know. For all you know, an atheist could find themselves on the path to Christianity after experiencing evidence of just one miracle, or conclusions from one powerful argument. It's certainly happened before! (Whether the perceived miracles were genuine or not is another question.)

You do not know what miracles are "for." You do not know how lkh's "salvation status" would be affected, or anyone else's that matter, if they were to be given a shot at the same type of experience Paul had. For you to smugly presume you do know is just... fucking ridiculous.

If you go with the Arminian stance, you still don't know what might affect an individual's heart, including the possibility of a miracle that induces saving faith. If you go with the Calvinists, the whole debate becomes moot because Calvinists believe salvation is a God initiated and God-sustained thing from start to finish, with man merely along for the ride. In either case, salvation status is essentially a black box--with NO indication of how this evidence or that evidence will affect the box.

I didn't mean to get overly harsh on you personally, but the combination of arrogance and ignorance in your declaration was doubly frustrating. It's really funny how people can take a murky subject, like theology, and just start applying their own conditions and provisos willy nilly as if they were some sort of cosmic bureaucrat armed with a rubber stamp and an editing pen.

I don't put much store (any store) by theology any more, as you may have guessed, but if YOU are going to put store by it, you might as well have a little more respect for consistent arguments.

 

[archimedes]

Quote from ddunbar:


We know for a fact that currently, we can't test/falsify the bible. No argument there. We first have to prove God exists. Whereas with the Porsche and H&B, since we already know they exist, we can test them. But that doesn't mean our comparisons will be useful or rational. Yes, they are both modes of transportation. But the speed comparison, or I should say acceleration comparison is unjustified. The means at which they accelerate is radically different. Even if one of the terms used to describe that power is called "horse power." Here is a case of apples to oranges. It's funny how that phrase somes up and is easily understood. Sure, they're fruits. But that's about it.

So, to make it simple. You compare apples to apples. Oranges to oranges. God stories to God stories. If you want to classify the bible as a myth, sure. But it stops there. You can't compare it to B. Grimm's tales as you would no less compare Shakespeare to Dr. Seuss.

Oh man, what a bunch of sophistry. You are just making stuff up as you go, do you realize that? I mean really, you are just riffing a mile a minute.

The bible can certainly be tested and falsified to a meaningful degree, in that many of the bible's earth-bound claims can be falsified. Take fruit of the spirit claims, for example. Nine of them were listed out in Galatians. If the bible claims that the spirit is present in believers, and not in unbelievers, then it is possible to conduct empirical experiments comparing the fruit levels--of love, joy, peace, patience, etc.--for the churched vs the unchurched. There would have to be a lot of definitions agreed to, and a lot of statistical vetting etc., but such an experiment could be carried out. (I submit that if this experiment were indeed carried out under rigorous documentation agreed to by both sides, there would be no detectable evidence that the holy spirit exists at all. The fruit levels of the churched would be no more significant than the unchurched, or worse. But that's another kettle of fish.)

There are other testable claims. If Christianity made no claims of influence on the real world whatsoever, it would be a wholly inert faith. But when and where Christianity does make claims of bringing spiritual power to bear on the real world, those claims can theoretically be tested.

The bible's internal consistency can also be tested. For example, as has already been discussed on this thread, the bible declares God not to be a god of confusion. Given all the confusion in the world, and in the pages of scripture itself, such a claim is laughable. The bible also suggests that God is eternally unchanging--and yet we are talking about the same God that used to accept human sacrifice, and had rules in place regarding it (Leviticus 27:28-29, Judges 11:30 onward.) There are plenty of other places where the bible steps on its own toes, or completely destroys its own credibility. Such internal elements can be compared, contrasted, and pondered, and in that sense tested for their quality and consistency.

As for Shakespeare and Dr. Seuss, who says you can't compare them? Is there a rule somewhere? Once again you are just making this stuff up. What you actually seem to be saying--what it seems you only could have meant to say--is that it is not logical to compare Shakespeare and Dr. Seuss. But why wouldn't it be logical? How do you know HOW they are being compared? There are all kinds of ways in which they could be contrasted: narrative style, gender trends, over-arching themes, cultural references, impact on Western thought, blah blah blah.

The upshot is, there are at least two sets of Shakespeare / Seuss comparisons: the illogical set and the logical set. Why should you presume the logical set to be completely empty? How can you know that? Again, you can't.

Saying it "stops there" to classify the bible as a myth is bullshit too. It's not like the gameshow "Let's make a deal," where you have to pick a door and stick with what you get. Talk about a hamfisted lack of nuance and subtlety. My God man, people have built entire careers, entire lifetimes of study, examining the rich and diverse intersections of history and culture and faith and civilization. Archaeologists and anthropologists do not have two big bins in their offices, one labled 'spot on' and the other labeled 'crap', with everything getting tossed into one bin or the other. It is possible to study such things from an agnostic point of view, or to have a tapestry of subtleties in one's view a bit more detailed than 1 or 0.

I'm taking a break from this thread for a while. Genuine inquiries and straightforward discussions are fun, but this particular flavor of debate is absolutely maddening. (Why is it, by the way, that Christians are far more postmodern than the heathens when it comes to questions they don't have straight answers for?)

Folks, when you are debating someone and they start making up rules on the spot, saying "this" is simple or "that" can't be done, check their premises. For the debate to be worthwhile, the rules of engagement need to be agreed to, and artificial boundaries introduced to the debate are premises themselves that need to be tested. Much of the time, an attempt to overwhelm with a flurry of provisos and diversions and wherefores is little more than a smoke and mirrors parlor trick. If someone throws too many premises at you in a single post to respond to them adequately, it doesn't necessarily mean they have a leg to stand on. It could just mean they don't have a realistic position... let alone a sense of fair play in debate.

Signing off... I've had all the obtuse extemporization I can take for now.

 

[lkh]

Proof #19 - Notice that you ignore Jesus

Jesus made a number of very clear statements about money and wealth in the Bible. For example:

Matthew 6:19

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.
Matthew 19:21-24
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:28-29
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Luke 9:23-25
Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
Matt 13: 22
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.
Hebrews 13:5
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
Phil 2:3
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
The message is clear. If you want to follow Jesus, you need to "sell your possessions and give to the poor." It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it? The fact that you are reading this page would indicate that you have not. Chances are you own a computer, pay for an Internet connection every month, live in a home or apartment, have a car, etc. In other words, you live a life at a level of wealth unimaginable in Jesus' time. Meanwhile, billions of people on the planet live in startling, abject poverty.
Why don't you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible? The reason is simple: Jesus and God are imaginary, and you know it. If Jesus were real, you would do what he says.

 

[stu]

It's not difficult to appreciate the way in which archimedes finds such discussions deteriorating under the theistic viewpoint.
One minute the idea that, to test/falsify God for existence means one must only test/falsify for God against itself, is rejected with ..
"No I wouldn't dare put that forth."
Then, almost in the next sentence the opposite IS put forth, ..
"So, to make it simple. You compare apples to apples. Oranges to oranges. God stories to God stories"

Contradiction it seems is the only form of argument religion can employ in the end .
Although it is obviously reasonable to compare two books, determine them to be fictional or non fictional by their content, It is also possible to test/falsify for the existence of characters contained within the stories of those books and cross compare them to each other.
Characters of Dr. Seuss do indeed compare to characters in Shakespeare. Magicians in Seuss have direct correlations to witches in Macbeth. The construction of verse uses the same rules in both. To even imply an argument that one is true, different in some special way, better or right over the other somehow, only because it is said to be more sophisticated or complicated, is at least a gross over simplification and the extreme overrating of one of them.

To only allow comparisons of God stories to God stories and Grimm's stories to Grimm's stories, is an artificial reason for an excuse to not recognize the fact that they are both too similar in design. If it looks like a fairy story, sounds like a fairy story...

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

It's not difficult to appreciate the way in which archimedes finds such discussions deteriorating under the theistic viewpoint.
One minute the idea that, to test/falsify God for existence means one must only test/falsify for God against itself, is rejected with ..
"No I wouldn't dare put that forth."
Then, almost in the next sentence the opposite IS put forth, ..
"So, to make it simple. You compare apples to apples. Oranges to oranges. God stories to God stories"


Contradiction it seems is the only form of argument religion can employ in the end .

Oh don't be doltish. There is no contradiction whatsoever in the above. It makes no sense to test/falsiy God against itself. But it makes plenty of sense to compare the God of the bible against say, The God of the Qu'ran or Gods of the Bagavad Gita. Or the Greek Gods. Or the Egytptian Gods.

But to compare the God stories to B. Grimm, Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, the werewolf, etc... right. You're stretching it. It looks silly to go beyond their material commonality.

Although it is obviously reasonable to compare two books, determine them to be fictional or non fictional by their content, It is also possible to test/falsify for the existence of characters contained within the stories of those books and cross compare them to each other.
Characters of Dr. Seuss do indeed compare to characters in Shakespeare. Magicians in Seuss have direct correlations to witches in Macbeth. The construction of verse uses the same rules in both. To even imply an argument that one is true, different in some special way, better or right over the other somehow, only because it is said to be more sophisticated or complicated, is at least a gross over simplification and the extreme overrating of one of them.

To only allow comparisons of God stories to God stories and Grimm's stories to Grimm's stories, is an artificial reason for an excuse to not recognize the fact that they are both too similar in design. If it looks like a fairy story, sounds like a fairy story... [/B]

All I'll say about that is you will note that I stated that their commonality is that they both (bible - B.Grimm) can be considered myths. Why would you attempt to make it appear as if I said otherwise? As if I am promoting one as truth will demoting the other as false when I can't prove the validity of either? On that I've been clear. That's strange that you would do that.

Anyway, can you compare the three witches in Macbeth with the magicians in Dr. Seuss? Sure. They both use witchcraft/magic. One uses dark magic. One uses good magic.

But we're not about talking about individual characters. Hey, I could compare King David of the Old T with King Lear. So what? What ground in this discussion has been gained by doing so?

But I can't compare MacBeth with Dr. Seuss's "The grinch that stole Christmas" as if they are equivalents. To do so, I'd have to be doing it tongue in cheek. My state of mind would be questioned otherwise. People would hotly contest my notion that they are equivalents other than that they are both stories. The indignation I'd receive. The scorn.

So when you attempt to put forth that the bible and Grimm are equivalents beyond that they can both be classified as myths, you're on shaky ground my friend.

My favorite and most repected atheist argument goes like this:

"What makes your bible God any different that RA, or Zeus?" "What makes your religion materially different than all the others who have come and gone?"

Note what they are comparing. And that makes for an intelligent and difficult (on the part of theists) discussion.

 

[ddunbar]

Part 1: Reply to Arch's post

Firstly, even though I know you probably won't respond, I'm just taking this opportunity to address you post for whomever else is following

this discussion. Obviously, I haven't been clear enough which allowed room for the perceptions and conclusions you've drawn. So to begin:

'Paul' already believed? Don't you mean Saul -- the guy who was going around killing Christians? Before the road to Damascus, what was

the difference between Saul and the other Pharisees? By the standard of legalistc judaism, didn't they 'already believe' too? If God had

wanted to turn some other zealous pharisee into his main man, don't you think God could have succeeded in doing so? If God had chosen to make

an apostle of Baal his disciple--which he could have done--would that have counted as faith too?

Oh yes, I definitely mean Saul. So why did I say already believed then? The context of this discussion is that an atheist was asking for

proof before believing. Paul/Saul was looking for the messiah, just as Hebrews were for centuries. To Paul, there was no question of whether

or not God existed. There was no question that a messiah would come. His faith said that these things are true. The only question was, who

was the messiah. Who was/is the messiah, is not a question of faith. I know, you'll say, "of course it is because a messiah is a matter of

faith." Not in the mind of one who has faith already. The question is asked in order to fulfil object of faith.

That's radically different from an atheist or non-believer asking/conditioning, "if you show me God, then I'll believe." Believe in what? If

you're shown God, what is there now to believe in? You now KNOW that everything written is true. Where is faith then? Are you going to tell

me that faith is no longer required for salvation?

Back to the above, yes the pharasees believed in the same vein as Saul/Paul. But they simply rejected Jesus as the messiah and were looking

for another man to come and fill those shoes. Just as the orthodoxy is looking for today. God could have chosen anyone of them to be his as

you say, "main man." They too had evidence. But as usual per the discussion of miracles, the evidence did not "make" them believe.

As for the apostles, they had doubts all along and continued to have doubts--after the nets and fish, the loaves and fishes, the

raising of the dead, and so on, you STILL saw Peter deny Christ three times before the rooster crowed.

Which, thank you, further proves my point about the efficacy of miracles.

I was harsh in my reply because your claim--that 'knowledge' damns if it occurs before faith--was so arrogantly wrong and based on

nothing. From within a scriptural perspective, there is nowhere where it says 'knowledge damns before faith.' You just made that up. There

are, however, plenty of instances where belief comes after an eye-opening miracle occurs. Your qualification for Saul / Paul is especially

weak. You say he "already believed," but believed in what? He was in the brood of vipers. You came up with this "knowledge damns" idea out of

thin air. It is rank speculation. It is based on a false sense of distinction between evidence and faith that was never warranted.

I made it up? Speculation? Not found in scripture? Really?

Stand by:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew

first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in

unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even

his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their

imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and

creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between

themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against

nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that

which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things

which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,

malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in

them that do them.

There was a time when knowledge of God may have saved you, but that time has long past. Now is the time of faith. Matter of fact, it always

was. See Hebrews 11.

There are other passages but I choose this one because it is most succinct.

The Calvinists vs Arminians contrast was more aimed at your statement, "So aksing [sic] for proof of the bible God and receiving it

does nothing to improve your salvation status."

As far as the bible stands, salvation status is not a cut and dry thing in the least. Hypothetically speaking, how do people get saved?

Meaning where does the faith supposedly come from? Do they generate the saving faith themselves, or is the faith generated for them by the

holy spirit? The bible is not clear on this. There is the matter of being dead in trespasses and sins. There is the matter of Christ saying

"no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). Lots of other verses too. There is also the question of how

faith is sustained. Can someone lose their salvation? Again, the answer on that is not clear. Within the protestant church it is hotly

debated.

The question of whether God is ultimately wholly responsible for man's salvation, from quickening to keeping as Calvinists believe, or

whether there is some point at which man can initiate his own salvation but also lose it, which Arminians believe, is a major bone of

contention. As stated before, the bible is not clear.

While you appear to have some understanding of Christianity, which appears as that from an academic perspective, you fail to miss the core of

the religion. Salvation status is CUT and DRY among Christians. You either are or aren't. And they will all agree that one has to have faith

at a minimum. Don't believe me, just ask around. How one acquires faith (by choice or by God) or sustains faith (by human will or by God's)

are indeed debated among the various theological schools. But that's beside the point and you submitting it only serves to make you appear as

if you "know" a great deal about Christianity.

There are no degrees of salvation. Either you are saved or you are not. So status cannot be improved or deteriorated. Nevertheless, I

understand the point you are trying to make. You would want to make allowance that miracles might get someone "saved." or lead them on the

pathway. Why do I "arrogantly" say no? Simple. For one, there is no instance in the bible, the authority on miracles and what they are for,

where one believes because of a miracles who did not believe in God before. Miracles only confirm faith - as the bible states.

act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did

among you through him, as you yourselves know."

Etc. There are numerous verses in this vein.

But again, your statement 'knowledge before faith is damning' is clearly not supported by any genuine theology or scriptural text. How

can you presume to know what miracles are "for"? And the smugness with which you say proof does nothing for someone's salvation status speaks

to your arrogance of things you do not know. For all you know, an atheist could find themselves on the path to Christianity after

experiencing evidence of just one miracle, or conclusions from one powerful argument. It's certainly happened before! (Whether the perceived

miracles were genuine or not is another question.)

Addressed.

 

[ddunbar]

Part2: Reply to Arch's post.

You do not know what miracles are "for." You do not know how lkh's "salvation status" would be affected, or anyone else's that matter,

if they were to be given a shot at the same type of experience Paul had. For you to smugly presume you do know is just... fucking

ridiculous.

I don't know what miracles are for. OK. I guess then the bible's explanation is insufficient. Look, if you're going to discuss miracles in

the context of God and Christianity, then what's ridiculous is how you think your extra-biblical speculation should have equal footing. Well,

of course, I know, if you think the bible is nonsense, then any nonsense added to it is perfectly fine. And really, I have no problem with

that point of view. I don't. But have the common courtesy to state that upfront.

If you go with the Arminian stance, you still don't know what might affect an individual's heart, including the possibility of a

miracle that induces saving faith. If you go with the Calvinists, the whole debate becomes moot because Calvinists believe salvation is a God

initiated and God-sustained thing from start to finish, with man merely along for the ride. In either case, salvation status is essentially a

black box--with NO indication of how this evidence or that evidence will affect the box.

As for the Arminian stance, if you understood it correctly, you'd know that they believe that a man makes a freewill choice to believe in God

for saving faith. They glean this idea from only a handful of passages in the bible. And in their "gleaning' one of the tenets is that this

choice must be made uncoersed. If you examine their explanation of Pharoah and why he DIDN'T believe after all those miracles performed

before him, they'll say that he choose not to. And what is more, though they are incorrect, is that they will say that God hardened pharoah's

heart after Pharoah rejected him. And they will say that miracles do not induce one to believe but rather strengthen one's belief.

On Calvinism though, I give you credit in your understanding.

But what's interesting is that if as you say, Salvation is a black box (something I don't entirely disagree with), in which you cannot know

if this or that evidence will affect it, then the argument you make defeats itself in this manner: You simply haven't taken the time to

understand the purpose of miracles but wish to interject in an extra-biblical manner that they might have another purpose other than what

they were intended for.

And guess what? You're entitled to that opinion. I won't deingrate you for it. I'll just state your opinion as is or as I see it. You want to

interject something which is not in or contradicts what is in the bible into the argument to make allowances for whatever personal view you

have. People do it everyday. I even do it for things the bible is silent on.

Now, to pre-empt what one might think would be an example of the efficacy of miracles:

Mat 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and

Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Mat 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in

thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Mat 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Let's not confuse repentance with faith. Why? In the context of this passage, the miracles if performed before Sodom would have only

confirmed that the One threatening punishment has the power to carry it out. Here, they would have had KNOWLEDGE of that One's power. And as

per the conditional of the threat, would have turned away from their sin (to repent). It speaks nothing of their salvation which is

consistent with the bible's declaration on the efficacy of miracles. God would be giving them nothing to believe in. Where as with those of

Chorazin and Bethsaida, God had afore given them something to believe in - a prophesied messiah which would be followed by signs and wonders.

Well, here comes Jesus fulfilling those prophecies with miracles and signs, but no dice in the belief department for having witnessed them.

I didn't mean to get overly harsh on you personally, but the combination of arrogance and ignorance in your declaration was doubly

frustrating. It's really funny how people can take a murky subject, like theology, and just start applying their own conditions and provisos

willy nilly as if they were some sort of cosmic bureaucrat armed with a rubber stamp and an editing pen.

I don't put much store (any store) by theology any more, as you may have guessed, but if YOU are going to put store by it, you might as well

have a little more respect for consistent arguments.

No, you meant to be harsh and thought of no other type of response as appropriate. If frustrated, then ask questions. Such as "could you

elaborate more on..." Or "I really don't get where you are coming from here... I'm going have to ask you to flesh that out..."

You've got an axe to grind. It shows. But so what really. Everyone's got a axe to grind about something. And sure, I could have been nicer.

Yes, I think you're ignorant of a few things. Yes, you've shown high arrogance to other posters in this thread. As if your oft "middle of the

road" approach is somehow a high road. It's just a road between two points.

And note, just for noting's sake; you've been sarcastic, abusive, smug and arrogant to other posters in this thread. And you mean to be because you have a disdain for theists. Ok, ok, I can't entirely blame you considering some of the arguments that eminante from theists. In any event, I reject that I've been smug. Though, I fully acknowledge how I may appear arrogant on this particular issue. Yet I make no apologies for it other than to say I'll change my approach going forward from stating things as matter of factly to leading someone with an opposing view to examine their position by merely asking poignant questions. (But not until after I reply to your second post which follows this one.)

My position restated is this: If you speak of miracles, salvation, and God as defined in the bible, let's go to the source. Make your case

with the source. That's what's been the cause of contention. Extra-biblical speculations and comparisons to things extrabiblical as if they

can somehow be used to prove a point about something biblical.