So do you compare yourself to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Still mystifying but there might be a point there.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Why won't God heal amputees?"
- Thread starter lkh
- Start date
So do you compare yourself to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Still mystifying but there might be a point there.
Quote from rcanfiel:
Seems like on a different thread, discussions with you went in circles
Quote from rcanfiel:
(And I will quit with you there. Past experience says that you prefer to continue talking whether or not you have anything to say).
Quote from rcanfiel:
Since you ignore or do not understand most of what has transpired, I will step out of this conversation.
Retreating already? Why did you resurrect this thread in the first place if you were going to abandon it so quickly?
Alright, let's do just that.Quote from rcanfiel:
Try rereading the post. Was it THAT hard to see that it said that IRAN was the one making the assertion?
Quote from rcanfiel:
Both quite accurate.
The christian cannot prove God to others. It still remains a matter of faith, in spite of evidence.
Science has neither proven nor disproven the existence of God.
There is a lot of testable evidence in the scripture. Proving God is not the same as evidence.
Try Iran and the Holocaust. There is strong evidence for its existence, but "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked international outrage on Wednesday when he described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska."
I assume you're speaking English here. Following your sentence, "Proving God is not the same as evidence," you said, "Try Iran and the Holocaust." Let's see how we should read this.
1. You had earlier claimed that God cannot be proven or disproven. I assume that you imply that as an universal statement. In other words, God cannot be proven or disproven, whether you're a believer or not. Within this context, the analogy with the Holocaust is that the Holocaust cannot be proven or disproven, whether you believe it happened or not. This implies that you don't think there is proof that the Holocaust happened.
2. Since you denied the above reading of your post (somehow suggesting that it should be obvious to everyone), then let us look at the alternative interpretation. In the subsequent post you made an emphasis on IRAN. It suggests that if Iran doesn't believe that the Holocaust happened, then it is not proven to Iran. This is a bizzare logic. Your point can be interpreted as this: No matter how strong the evidence is, if you don't believe that something exists, then you cannot prove that it exists. The so-called "proof" is only valid if you believe it.
You know what, there is another name for your logic. It's called "faith."
He'll be from the old school .. // runs in the room pees in the punch bowl shouting at the bar staff 'I don't understand why you did that' // ... type.Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Retreating already? Why did you resurrect this thread in the first place if you were going to abandon it so quickly?
Doesn't realize he makes ridiculous statements and simply because they are pointed out as such, blames everyone for not being able to hold conversation.
It seems rationality on such subjects don't come easy to rcanfiel , who can only yell at others through the fog inside that unidirectional religious bubble he trapped himself in.
Quote from rcanfiel:
Since you ignore or do not understand most of what has transpired, I will step out of this conversation. For those who don't know why, reread the stu-rcanfiel posts. Come to your own conclusions. stu prefers to keep talking rather than grasp the thread. As to what stu thinks, I have quickly learned that I don't care. I think the pilot light went out.
More than happy to discuss with those who can carry on a 2-way conversation.
Quote from rcanfiel:
Stu process:
1) React/respond to posts, whether or not you have a clue what they said
2) ignore other person's points about your posts (it is easier to gloss over, than to deal with)
3) Use logic somewhat equivalent to "o, yea"? a lot
4) use terms like "Don't you see how ridiculous that is?" without saying why it is so or showing why it is untrue.
5) Parrot back other person's stock words without responding to your own many errors.
6) Keep talking whether or not you have anything to say. After all, if you keep talking, that must mean you win!!!
For many examples, look at rcanfiel-stu exchange. Sad thing is, I would love to have a conversation. But when the other person would rather talk than listen, there is little point wasting your energy...
rcanfiel,
1) React/respond to posts, whether or not you have a clue what they said
5) Parrot back other person's stock words without responding to your own many errors.
a.) If people ...."Avoid too much sun...." how exactly will they be "... avoiding sun too much.."
b. How come you know about melanoma and how come you know about vitamin D.
Is it .. âWhoopsâ due to science or âWhoopsâ due to religious faith.
c.) Do you think it is ok to say any ridiculous thing in support of any silly argument because you think there is a God on your side.
please note c.) is discretionary. No marks will be added or taken away should you choose to answer or not. as it is an obvious 'yes' anyways
1) React/respond to posts, whether or not you have a clue what they said
your post contained this,...... "- Avoid too much sun - causes melanomas. Whoops,actually, avoiding sun too much causes many more deaths (eg, Vitamin D). "
I used it as an example, for all the other items in the list which are as equally or more ridiculous....
You have made no points other than ridiculous ones. I asked if I need explain why that sentence of yours in quotes above is ridiculous. You ignore that. You gloss over it with accusations that I am glossing over. That's where you pee in the punch..
It went this way. You made an assertion and tried to back it up with a list of ridiculous sentences full of error. I point that out. The rest is a litany of winging from you just because I pointed out you were making a very silly assertion. based on ridiculous sentences in a very silly list.
You tell people to re read posts as that is the record . When one does, it is found you have peed in the punch yet again. To put it simply, you mess up then try to say others messed up.
Are you trying to say from your point of view no one is supposed to question your ridiculous points?
I asked you before but you ignored. Do you mean you honestly cannot see what is wrong with that sentence, and therefore what is also wrong with the whole list you made, and in turn how that makes your point pretty much worthless.. Do you really need me to explain that to you?
5) Parrot back other person's stock words without responding to your own many errors.
.. Disprove, don't assert are your stock words?...then why don't you try to live by them.
I used your stock words in demonstration to illustrate why they don't work if you don't live by them too. I showed you why I say your sentence(s) are ridiculous ....does lacking in logical relation not ring any bells?
- You were saying?!!!
a.) If people ...."Avoid too much sun...." how exactly will they be "... avoiding sun too much.."
b. How come you know about melanoma and how come you know about vitamin D.
Is it .. âWhoopsâ due to science or âWhoopsâ due to religious faith.
c.) Do you think it is ok to say any ridiculous thing in support of any silly argument because you think there is a God on your side.
please note c.) is discretionary. No marks will be added or taken away should you choose to answer or not. as it is an obvious 'yes' anyways
Quote from lkh:
So you blame the amputees because they lack faith? How typical of believers to excuse the inaction of their God by acusing other christians as somehow not "real" christians.
Do you really think that throughout all of our history there has never been an amputee with enough faith to be healed?
Why does God heal every person who Benny Hinn touches no matter what their background but refuses to ever heal an amputee?
No Son of God can lack faith, and his power goes with him everywhere. The amputee is a Son of God who put his faith in something other than truth, to make an illusion appear real. Now he believes in the reality of his wound, having denied the truth, which is to forget it. The truth is: A Son of God cannot be hurt, and remains whole, as God made him.
Jesus