No one has characterized your points as “stupid” You have been witnessing, and that is fine, if all you want to do is share your faith. But that is not the same as proving any of the factual claims you have made.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
What, no “win” for my post 197? That’s a quality joke, people!
[/QUOTE]
When it happens to me, I always picture the silent majority spraying their keyboard with their favorite beverage. It probably isn’t true, but it’s a reassuring fiction.
Hey, kinda like God!
Vinyl Turnip
So far, yours is the only joke in this thread to actually make me laugh out loud.
Actually, 197 was pretty priceless. I’ll repost the text:
Nah. Just hear the following in the voice of Stewie Griffin
So is there any real debate here (and what’s the thesis)?
The OP seems not to grok the null hypothesis, the structure of proof and refutation, or the necessity of verification and the sorting process of alternate explanations. I’m game to actually take a whirl here, but we seem to have gone from an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God choosing to let people be maimed for life (or born that way) to… well, fuck if I know.
Call the tune and let’s dance.
OK, you really have to stop doing this.
**tomndebb **didn’t call you an embarrassment, he said the arguments you had put forth so far were a bit embarrassing to him/her.
If you can’t make a distinction between someone poo-pooing what you say (with a metaphorical apologetic smile in this case, too) and someone trashing you as a person, you should probably stay off this particular subforum.
While you’re at it, you might also get around to stopping assuming that the only reason people would disagree with you must be that they’re atheists with hardcore anti-Christian agendas or that they’re arguing in bad faith*.
- pun not intended but fuck it, I’ll take it.
If you were to make a lobster salad out of the Jesus Crustacean, and then spread it on a Ritz, would it be Christ on a cracker?
That would be Puttin’ On The Ritz.
To return to the substance of the debate - the proposal is that God doesn’t heal amputees because that would entail the creation of new, sinful tissue.
OK -forget whether that’s empirically true or even falsifiable. Does the proposal stack up against all cases of miraculous restoration documented in the Bible, given what we know to be true about wounds and healing today.
What I mean is this; you cut yourself - the tissues surrounding the wound are damaged in a way that means new cells must come into being when the wound closes. It’s fine to say that our bodies do this by design - and thus, the creation of the new tissues is not miraculous.
But the healing process takes days or weeks. If there is a case of miraculous healing of any ailment that we know requires new tissues, and the timeframe of the miracle is instantaneous, or nearly so, then the alleged incident requires supernatural creation of the new tissues.
So. Do all the miracles in the Bible stack up to the assertion that God can’t make new sinful flesh?
Is the proposal that God cannot create new sinful flesh internally consistent with all miraculous headings in the Bible?
Please excuse typos - posting from a smartphone on a wobbly train.
More importantly: how many people would that cracker feed?
Wait? So Flatworms, geckos and starfish are made of sinful tissue?
Bummer.
At my family’s Seders before 1967 we said “next year in Jerusalem.” It came true - perhaps you should convert to Judaism. I’ve read the Bible all the way through, and the so-called Christian predictions are garbage - mistranslations, misunderstandings, distortions of the true text to make it match your pagan world view. (Pagan - Greek and Roman gods mated with humans to have demigod children - not the Jewish God.)
I’m here in the US because my great-grandparents fled the Cossacks - good Christians all. I know the bullshit prophecies. Fundies just want Israel to exist so Jesus can come back and kill us all. No thanks.
BTW, as for strokes, my father in law has had several, left the hospital well before 9 days, and has had no ill effects. He is now 95, and in pretty full command of his mental faculties. Oh, and it was not faith healing - he is an atheist.
Jesus healed an ear, evidently by touching the stump. It seems like new mass was created, unless he just stopped the bleeding:
He also healed a guy with a gimpy hand. Presumably new flesh was necessary to fill it out:
So the OP isn’t looking internally consistent.
No - they never partook of the forbidden fruit, and are therefore still perfect and immortal.
Even if it just healed over, that’s still rapid creation of scar tissue, but if it just scabbed up real fast, it’s not really a miracle.
I expect there’s weasel room there - maybe ‘withered’ can be tortured to mean ‘crooked, but otherwise whole’.
How about Lazarus - he was dead and his flesh was rotting and stinky. Gotta be some new tissue creation when he was resurrected.
And the lepers. I checked, but it didn’t say if fingers and toes were replaced. But at the least, I assume their skin damage was instantly fixed. Since outsiders could tell they were healed.
I live in a predominately atheist country, the UK.
You really need to get over this attitude if you wish to be taken seriously.
No, that’s jellyfish.
Mark 2:1-12. Jesus heals a paralytic. Depending on what kind of paralysis we’re talking about (MS, ALS, spinal damage, cerebral palsy, polio…) it probably also involves knitting new tissue.
For that matter, there’s a seminal problem with the Haploid Christ himself, no ?
No matter how God impregnated Mary, at one point one egg had to become multiple cells, which doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Did the Lord of Hosts manifest a Holy Swimmer inside her womb ? I know sperms are sacred, every last one of them, but that’s still human biology, which according to the OP is tainted down to the DNA level. (I for one am of the opinion that Michael tapped dat, but it’s not a popular theory :)).