Thankyou for sharing. I’m happy for you and your brother. It is unfortunate that your expression of joy and gratitude had to be transferred to a debating forum where your faith gets challenged. Given your faith and the circumstances, it is inconceivable to me that you can share this fantastic course of events without giving your God His due. People normally are satisfied with the story and willing to overlook the attribution.
I suggest that you withdraw the argument about your faith. It wasn’t your intention and it only pollutes this wonderful story.
Btw, this “miraculous” event reminds me of another “miraculous” event related by another Christian, under attack for his faith. You may want to check it out.
Great post, although I would suggest he never withdraw the argument for [his own] faith.
The fact that he posted on a MB with a high degree of people who are clueless about their own faith, is no reason for him to silence his own.
In other words, Gbro started a thread that had an element of witnessing to it. Since ***all of us ***are acting upon our own subjective beliefs, the responses that he’s received are simply another form of witnessing; that in this MB often takes the form of vitriol, immaturity and abject ignorance.
I say he should stand up straight and proud for a great post, and not let the sheer numbers of juvenile responses blind him to the intellectual anemia of some of the responses. Popularity (here, anyway) and a mob mentality is no surrogate for intellectual vitality.
I say let them witness. The result speaks for itself.
Don’t be silly. Not all beliefs are equal; something like science has far more evidence for it’s assertions, far more logical consistency and a far better record of actually working than such archaic myths created by primitive barbarians, like God & Christianity. Your Argument for God by Solipsism is ridiculous.
Believing in God is the opposite of “intellectual vitality”; it’s more intellectual brain death.
Bluntly pointing out the obvious silliness of Christianity doesn’t make the person doing the pointing wrong. The fact is, Christianity is a collection of irrational, baseless myths that just don’t deserve to be taken seriously, much less followed. Just because someone refuses to go along with the charade that Christianity has a chance of being right doesn’t mean they are wrong.
This is an unjustified description of my comment. I believe I was asking a perfectly reasonable question, based on the available information given in the OP, and the logical assumptions outlined therein. Gbro gives some credit to the medical practitioners who worked on his brother’s case, but on the basis that God assigned them their ‘special gifts’. Since God is also ‘ultimately in charge’ and ‘has the final say’, logically this would imply that God, being in charge, is working through the ‘special gifts’ of the practitioners, and no doubt his brother’s biology, in controlling the ‘final say’ of the situation. This raises a number of theological issues, including predestination, human free will and whether God instructs events arbitrarily, or follows some greater moral guidance. None of these points have been addressed.
My question was asked with the specific intent of understanding why God acts through an apparent proxy, since this is unnecessary and clearly causes the theological complications outline above. If this doesn’t stand, my other question was to probe at the possibility that all decisions should be conceded to God, again apparently being ‘ultimately in charge’, if humans are in fact their own agents, and God does not act through them. Instead, taking advantage of medical science would appear to contradict God’s authority, and might conceivably be a sign of some inherent self-deception in an unquestioning belief in God, and his ability to ‘handle all situations’.
Glad I could clear that up… or not (having read back through it).
Ah, but not pretending to respect the belief that Santa exists and has healing powers proves that Santa DOES exist and has healing powers ! At least, according to raindog, apparently.
The absolute irony in all of this is your own blindness. For the purpose of this thread I’d be *pleased * to post as your brother in arms atheist.
The point you’re missing is that you’re witnessing, plain and simple. (although in a clumsy ham handed way) The further irony is that the only thing that could produce such blindness-------a moral certainty in your position------is the quality of faith.
As far as this thread is concerned, I don’t care one bit whether God exists or not, or whether he had a hand in Gbro’s brother’s recovery. Not one bit.
But presenting your subjective beliefs as objective fact is only accomplished through the application of faith.
Ah, but the essential difference is we tend to believe in things we have evidence for. I don’t know there isn’t a god. But I do know that there is as much evidence for Him as there is for Santa.
On what basis does one dismiss Santa while believing in Jehova? It’s purely personal preference. And it’s a stupid decision. You talk about gilding the lily, pretending that the willful decision to believe that the murdering sociopath God as described in the bible exists is laudable, is to gild a turd.
Respect is for respectable ideas. And deciding by fiat that Santa is responsible for spontaneous urethra regeneration isn’t something to cheer. It’s the embracing of ignorance.
You are still clearly blind to your own faith, and for that I commend you. It is an element of the strongest faiths to have a moral certainty; a certainty that makes the most subjective matter objectively certain. I think one author put it something like, “the assured expectation of things not beheld…”, or something like that.
Here’s one example, using your own words. You said, and I quote, “Ah, but the essential difference is we tend to believe in things we have evidence for.”
Isn’t it true that that statement------no matter exhaustively pursued----could never lead to an objective determination that God doesn’t exist, essentially an objective form of atheism?
I mean, your own comments suffer from intellectual malnourishment. Pursued to it’s logical stalemate end, that statement can only lead to agnosticism. Yet your faith simply cannot accept the equivalent of kissing your sister; a tie.
It is not a coincidence that the agnostic is called “an atheist with no balls”; a person who based on the known objective facts finds himself unable to find the moral certainty in God or Atheism. But not you. You aren’t having it.
No, my friend, you are correct in saying you’re one of the believers.
A number of years ago, on the local Cleveland news, there was a woman who had given birth to a baby with a fatal heart defect. There was a very difficult, experimental surgical procedure to fix the defect, but the woman had no insurance or money to pay for it. So all the surgeons, nurses, and everyone else involved donated their time and effort and expertise to save the woman’s baby.
The operation was a success, and the reporter asked the woman if she wanted to express any words of gratitude. The woman replied, “Yes, I want to thank all the churches that prayed for us.”
Proof that the woman is absolutely unfit for parenting. If I had been on the medical team and heard that, I would’ve sent a bill thicker than the deficit. EMWIGMT.
