I have posited that there can be no justice without the existence of a Just God. To provide argument to support this claim let us look at what “justice” means. According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
- The quality of being just; fairness
- The principle of moral rightness; equity.
- Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
- The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
- Law The administration and procedure of law.
- A judge.
- A justice of the peace.
- The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
- Law The administration and procedure of law.
- A judge.
- A justice of the peace.
- Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
- Abbr. J. Law
- A judge. A justice of the peace.
The very employment of justice presumes a standard of rightness to which governs the actions of humanity. If justice is a “conformity to moral rightness” or “righteousness” there must be a standard by which conformity is judged.
If there is no objective righteousness there is no justice. There is no judgment of actions to a standard of righteousness. There is no upholding of a law any higher than man’s subjective laws of society. There is nothing concrete to justice. A victim is no longer a victim because there is no standard to determine violation of personal value or rights. The victimizer is off the hook for there is no standard. The only way that both the victim and the victimizer are brought justice is for there to be an objective moral standard.
The only way there can be an objective moral standard, is if there is an objective moral law giver who is in His character by His nature the self-existing standard of righteousness. Righteousness equates to goodness. If this righteous good God meets out justice according to the holy righteous standard of His character which results in punishment for some and mercy for others. God has decreed that He provided the sacrifice to enable Justice to justify us in Christ. If we are not under the grace of the gift of Christ blood, we are under Justice with no grace. This does not make God less good. We only find goodness in Him; apart from Him we are not good. His character is the standard of goodness and no one gains righteousness apart from His deeming us righteous through Christ.
We cannot judge Him as not good for we have no standard of goodness outside of Him by which to cast judgment upon Him. He gives meaning to the victim that would be lost without Him. He became a victim for us, experiencing our life on earth, experiencing human suffering first hand, and giving His own blood for our sins. What greater goodness could there be than Jesus sacrificing Himself for finite immoral man who rejected Him and rejects Him still? Christ didn’t die for good people; He died for unworthy sinners to make us worthy. He doesn’t ask for us to be good to earn salvation. He asks us to receive salvation from the only one who can give us eternal life.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
18 comments:
Karla,
If I may (and I'm in no way trying to insult you), I've observed a tendency to see things in black and white, that without a perfect justice, there is no justice. Without a perfect good, there is no good at all. I think this is a big stumbling point in our discussions, because I feel these are false dichotomies. For instance,
"If there is no objective righteousness there is no justice. There is no judgment of actions to a standard of righteousness."
This is demonstrably false. As humans, we have made our own justice systems. They are not perfect, but they are justice systems, none-the-less, and they were done without the help of a god, especially in the case of this country and its godless Constitution.
"The only way there can be an objective moral standard, is if there is an objective moral law giver who is in His character by His nature the self-existing standard of righteousness."
Again, this is flawed reasoning. Things don't have to be given from on high in order to be objectively determined. Please see my comment on the Euthyphro thread for more on that.
"God has decreed that He provided the sacrifice to enable Justice to justify us in Christ."
I don't know what this means. Was there no justice before Jesus? Why is human sacrifice a key component of justice?
"We cannot judge Him as not good for we have no standard of goodness outside of Him by which to cast judgment upon Him."
That's not true either. You and I can decide that genocide is not good and give a reason for it, then we two can judge that the genocides of god in the Bible are certainly not good. Even if some tyrant comes forward to argue with us, we've still made a determination about god's goodness. Further, you've never answered my point that Xians contend that we can't fully know god's nature, so there's no way we can determine that god is good.
"What greater goodness could there be than Jesus sacrificing Himself for finite immoral man who rejected Him and rejects Him still?"
That one's easy...how about he doesn't create a universe where that was "necessary?" If you don't think that's possible, then god is not omnipotent.
OMGF
Have you ever seen the movie the Truman Show? Truman thought everything happening in "his world" was just the way things are until he saw a few blips in the natural course of things that seemed to suggest there was more to the story. Of course it is an imperfect example because Truman was being tricked and God's not tricking us.
Our thinking that because something is the way it is suggest it's part of nature and not supernature is false reasoning. It's amazing how most people will accept the most absurd natural explanation versus accepting a miraculous explanation. For instance, skeptics posit that the disciples and Paul and all the other recorded eyewitnesses only saw a hallucination of Jesus after the Resurrection and not really Jesus. However, never before or since in history has more than one person had the same hallucination. But, people prefer absurd natural explanations over believing a miracle.
See Tozer quotes I just posted.
Karla,
"Have you ever seen the movie the Truman Show?"
Sorry, never seen it - I'm not a fan of Jim Carey.
"Our thinking that because something is the way it is suggest it's part of nature and not supernature is false reasoning."
I'm stumped by this statement. Things that are, are a part of nature. And, I don't see why it is false reasoning not to assume that something has a supernatural component. Please clarify.
"It's amazing how most people will accept the most absurd natural explanation versus accepting a miraculous explanation."
Even the most absurd natural explanation (if based on evidence and reason) is less absurd than any miraculous explanation, especially those with no evidence.
"For instance, skeptics posit that the disciples and Paul and all the other recorded eyewitnesses only saw a hallucination of Jesus after the Resurrection and not really Jesus."
I am not familiar with this argument, nor am I familiar with all these supposed eyewitnesses. I'm unaware of any actual (verified) eyewitness accounts.
OMGF
In the Truman Show, Jim Carrey (Truman) lives in a created reality. In this case the Creator is a TV producer. Truman has lived in this created reality since he was a baby. When the movie starts he is a married man. He begins to see patterns in his world that seem like there is something more at work then the reality he knows. He then starts seeing signs of something going on behind the scenes-a world outside his so to speak. He begins to become unsatisfied with life as it is and continues to explore. Now in this story the creator does not have his best interest at heart and he tries to keep him from finding out about the outside world. He tries to prevent the intrusions of the greater reality from spilling over into his known reality to no avail.
The point is that the real Creator has placed in nature signs of His existence and He does supernatural things like miracles. Sometimes He gives us glimpes of the supernatural world. Sometimes it's acts of kindness from people who are sent into your life to show you God's love through their loving you. There are all kinds of ways He makes Himself visible. However, if you don't believe He exist for whatever reason -- you will see all of those things as something natural instead of a sign of the supernatural. In the movie Truman could have intellectually said that there was no proof of anything beyond his reality and all these things he was seeing were only his imagination or just nature he hasn't learned to explain yet, but instead he let these things push him toward greater investigation until finally his efforts are rewarded. His friends tried to explain away the things he was seeing for the good of the world watching this reality tv show, but Truman rejected their explanations and kept seeking the truth.
You can accept the natural explanations people like Dawkins puts forth or you can keep seeking truth until you find it. I think you are choosing to seek, but are still kind of prefering the natural explanations.
Have you read the quotes I posted on Justice and Holiness by A.W. Tozer?
As for the evidence for Jesus Resurrection, that's another full subject, but a good one. I'll see if I can provide you a link to more info on that versus repeating the information myself.
Check out these you tube videos when you get time.
Existence of God by Ravi Zacharias
Existence of God by Ravi Zacharias
Problem of Evil by Ravi Zacharias
Lee Strobel on The Resurrection of Jesus
Karla,
"He begins to see patterns in his world that seem like there is something more at work then the reality he knows. He then starts seeing signs of something going on behind the scenes-a world outside his so to speak."
I see where you are going with this. The problem is that he was dealing with natural agents, and much like evolution or forensics, natural agents leave behind evidence of their existence. There is no such analog for a supernatural being.
"The point is that the real Creator has placed in nature signs of His existence and He does supernatural things like miracles."
There are no confirmed miracles, and how would you ever know that a "sign" of god's existence was really a sign of god's existence?
"Sometimes it's acts of kindness from people who are sent into your life to show you God's love through their loving you."
All you have evidence for is that someone did something kind. How would you ever know that they did that because god sent them? As an aside, if god is sending people to show me his love, isn't that violating their free will?
"There are all kinds of ways He makes Himself visible."
And none of them are working. As I said before, if he wants to have a relationship with me, he knows what he has to do - yet he does not do it.
"However, if you don't believe He exist for whatever reason -- you will see all of those things as something natural instead of a sign of the supernatural."
If you don't make illogically fallacious jumps to an unevidence supernature, then you will see these things as natural.
"You can accept the natural explanations people like Dawkins puts forth or you can keep seeking truth until you find it."
Evidence is key here. The reason that I accept natural explanations is because they tend to have evidence for them. Take evolution for example vs. the Bible. We have mountains of evidence for evolution from homology, the fossil record, etc. There happens to be no evidence for the Bible and actually some counter-evidence for the Bible. Why should I not accept the evolutionary narrative as more believable than the Bible?
"Have you read the quotes I posted on Justice and Holiness by A.W. Tozer?"
I have, but have not digested them. I will have to do that later. I'll also have to check your links later.
OMGF
Ravi - vid 1 & 2,
His first argument boils down to a well-known apologetic that everything had to come from something, not from nothing, and that something is god. Yet, he fails to prove that something hasn't always been there. And, his point about the infinite things that need to happen is actually false. I also find it funny that god is always conveniently excluded somehow from the idea that everything needs a cause. Lastly, he also errs in assuming that it must be only 1 cause instead of many. He's tryingn to exclude polytheistic ideas, yet he can't do so logically, so he simply asserts it without evidence (and might I point out that this is only an argument for deism, not Xianity).
Argument 2 - fine tuning argument:
This is simply an argument from ignorance and an astounding ignorance of statistics and probability. There's also quite a bit of arguing from incredulity, i.e. "Wow, look at all those stars, it must be designed." The end of the "argument" is truly lame when he talks about the astronauts.
His last argument was incoherent, and I believe it was unfinished?
Ravi - vid 3,
Right off the bat he messes up. He claims that making an argument about the problem of evil means that the arguer is assuming good. He is in error here. If the theist asserts that god is good, then the theist is making the assumption of a thing called good. The atheist, in that case, is saying, "Let's say you are right that god is good and that good exists, then why is there evil." Ravi is completely wrong on this point. And, he compounds it by making the mistake that to call something good or evil necessitates that there be a "moral law giver", which is again completely false and wrong as I've already argued.
I like how he talks about rape being the ultimate desecration of a human being...which is why god gave women over to men as part of their spoils?
The rest of it is proselytizing that doesn't address the problem of evil.
Strobel vid,
Resurrection?
1st argument - empty tomb. He falsely claims that everyone agreed that tomb was empty. This is amazing to me, considering that the accounts are written well after the fact (there are no contemporary accounts), there were no eyewitnesses, and his assetion is blatantly false considering all the criticism that Xians received (theologically) from the unconverted Romans. He also assumes it happened - another case of begging the question. He is either very ignorant or lying.
His next claim is also tenuous. There are not 515 eyewitnesses that saw the resurrected Jesus, there are 515 reported eyewitnesses, as recorded by a single source which was written well after the fact by someone who wasn't there himself. This is very much less than compelling.
His next point about the disciples being willing to die for their beliefs is also rather tenuous. We actually have very little information on what became of the apostles, if they even existed. He's claiming that they all died for their beliefs, but that's far from proven as we don't know what happened to the vast majority of them. Also, you should look up "Sabattai Zevi." If you think that dying for Jesus by people who know him is somehow evidence of Jesus, then you should also believe that Zevi was divine as well.
Now, he's simply mistaken or lying about how early the books of the Bible were written. He asserts that some were written just 24 months after the resurrection, but this is simply not true. The earliest books were written by Paul in the 50AD timeframe, which is 20 years after the event supposedly happened.
Now he's making an argument from authority by talking about "The greatest lawyer that ever lived."
Now, he's making an argument that because the Bible says it, that means it happened. The Bible says that Jesus claimed to be god, that he performed miracles, etc. therefore he assumes that that is what happened. This is a conclusion that is not based in evidence, however, but in simply accepting what one has been told. I have a feeling that if I went up to Lee and told him that the flogglub is grublub, he would believe it as long as he thought it had something to do with Jesus.
Overall, I'm a little dismayed at the shoddy scholarship and bad arguments on display by Ravi and Strobel. Personally, I think Ravi is simply making bad arguments, but that Strobel is a charlatan. If he had actually researched the history of Xianity, he would not be spouting such blatant inaccuracies, either that or more likely he doesn't care if he's gotten the facts right or not because he wants to believe. I think it's sad when one leaves one's brain at the door, forgets about the real world, and decides that one is going to make the real world fit around their preconceptions and their religious views. Of course, in Strobel's case, I don't think he's simply mistaken, I think he's lying to people.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the empty tomb was never questioned. The Romans said that the disciples stole the body. They could not produce the body. If they could have they would have. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by not producing the body. It was indeed empty. If the disciples stole it they wouldn't have all died torturous deaths for they too had nothing to gain by lying.
The entire New Testament was most likely fully completed before the destruction of the temple in 70A.D. and most of it was completed even earlier. The eye witnesses were still alive when all this was written.
Lee Strobel did a huge investigation of the claims of the Bible. He was an atheist when he set out on his quest and his wife had newly become a Christian and he was very angry about that. He isn't lying to anyone.
As for Ravi's first argument. Something must be self-existing and self-evident for all else to come. If there was something that created God then that would be God. It has to stop somewhere with something that is self-evident and uncreated. Life comes from life. Life does not come from non-life all of science attest to this. That is why evolution cannot come up with origins.
"There are no confirmed miracles, and how would you ever know that a "sign" of god's existence was really a sign of god's existence?"
That's a pretty bold statement. A supernatural event would be evidence of a supernatural reality. Which would mean there is something more than nature and would lend great credence for the existence of God.
There is a ton of evidence for the supernatural. There are documented accounts of after death experiences. There are miraculous healings. (I've experienced one and seen others). I saw my mother-in-laws hand instantly regain movement, upon receiving prayer, it had not had for 30 years do to a severe wound to the hand decades before. I had a severe sinus and upper respiratory infection that I was completely and instantly healed from upon receiving prayer. I prayed for a woman's hearing to restore in one ear where she had partial hearing and it was restored. A friend of mine had a numb foot for 13 years from an accident and he received prayer and his foot regained full sensitivity. He sat stunned in tears giving glory to God after it happened. I've seen way to much to disbelieve God and the supernatural. I've had a girl from a European nation who I had never met before sit beside me at a conference and tell me exactly what I was going through -- stuff I had only told me husband just earlier that day and she spoke into my life and my husbands life for ten minutes sharing stuff God was showing her about us and encouraging us. She was right on 100%. I was at a different conference earlier this year and a girl came up to me and told me that I was a writer (that's the third time someone I never met has told me that without knowing me and only having received the knowledge from God). Everything my husband and I are doing right now in our lives are a direct response to dreams my husband has had from God and prophetic confirmation that others have told us who have never met us prior to that. God is doing so many amazing things around me and through me -- there is no way He doesn't exist and I should check myself into the nearest psychiatric facility.
"As an aside, if god is sending people to show me his love, isn't that violating their free will?"
That means He is speaking to a Christian and showing them He wants them to befriend you or something like that. That's not taking away free will that's sharing His will with a person and them wanting to do it because they love Him.
"Even the most absurd natural explanation (if based on evidence and reason) is less absurd than any miraculous explanation, especially those with no evidence."
I'm not sure you would accept any evidence for the supernatural since your mind seems to be made up that it's impossible. I except you to respond to my list above in some natural explanatory way despite the obvious supernaturalness of the stories. Either I'm lying to you, I'm crazy, or I'm telling the truth. If either of the first two then you have no reason to listen to me further.
Karla,
"I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the empty tomb was never questioned."
There's no evidence that there was a tomb to begin with or that anyone was put in it. Later writers have made this assertion, but it is not correct and should be taken with extreme skepticism.
"If the disciples stole it they wouldn't have all died torturous deaths for they too had nothing to gain by lying."
Again, we don't know what happened to the disciples if they even existed at all. There are a couple early Xians that fit descriptions of the disciples that did meet death, but those accounts are few.
"The entire New Testament was most likely fully completed before the destruction of the temple in 70A.D. and most of it was completed even earlier. The eye witnesses were still alive when all this was written."
This is simply false. The first gospels were not written until around 70AD at the earliest. The last books of the NT were written well into the 2nd century.
"Lee Strobel did a huge investigation of the claims of the Bible. He was an atheist when he set out on his quest and his wife had newly become a Christian and he was very angry about that. He isn't lying to anyone."
If he isn't lying, then he did some very shoddy investigative work, because the claims he is making are false. And, because of that, people like you are being misled into thinking that the Bible is propped up and much more reliable than it actually is.
"As for Ravi's first argument. Something must be self-existing and self-evident for all else to come."
And you know that how? That's the point. He's making an assertion that he can't prove that is dependent on a misunderstanding of the nature of the universe.
"If there was something that created God then that would be God."
Or, it's turtles all the way down.
"It has to stop somewhere with something that is self-evident and uncreated."
Actually, no it doesn't.
"Life does not come from non-life all of science attest to this. That is why evolution cannot come up with origins."
I'm sorry, but you are making some factually incorrect statements here. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, period. Evolution is not seeking to explain how the first replicating cells came to be. That is outside of the scope of the theory, so it's incorrect to say that that is a problem for evolution. There are abiogenetic theories out there and studies and work being done, but those are separate from evolution.
I also have to contest your idea that life does not come from non-life. We know this to be false. It some point there was no life on this planet, then there was; hence life did come from non-life, no matter how you slice it. Further, we have experiments that show that organic cells can self-form and become replicating structures that build life. I suggest you look up the RNA world and the Miller Urey experiments for more information.
OMGF
Karla,
"A supernatural event would be evidence of a supernatural reality."
How would you ever know an event is supernatural? In order to determine that, you have to be able to prove that there is no possible natural explanation for it. Do you think it is possible to do that?
"Which would mean there is something more than nature and would lend great credence for the existence of God."
A god, not necessarily your god.
"There are documented accounts of after death experiences."
You do realize these are all quite easily explainable, don't you?
"There are miraculous healings."
I'm not going to belittle your list or call you a liar. I'm quite sure that you think you've seen these things and that you don't think they can come from any source other than your personal god. Of course, you have no proof that any of these things came from your god or any god, just an argument from ignorance - you don't know how these things could have happened, so it must have been god. There's also a well-known phenomena amongst humans to count the hits and disregard the misses. When something happens that confirms what you want to believe, well then you focus on that, while the million other things that disconfirm your belief you tend to not even notice. I would wonder whether you could take one of those "miracles" and actually verify it, and also verify that it not only can not ever be explained by natural causes but came from your specific god.
"I'm not sure you would accept any evidence for the supernatural since your mind seems to be made up that it's impossible."
Actually, I would, if the evidence were compelling. I'm sorry but second-hand accounts of miraculous healings aren't that compelling to me for obvious reasons.
"I except you to respond to my list above in some natural explanatory way despite the obvious supernaturalness of the stories."
It's only "obvious[ly] supernatural" because you've decided that this is the work of your god. For someone who doesn't accept your god, it is far from obvious.
"Either I'm lying to you, I'm crazy, or I'm telling the truth."
Or you are simply mistaken (confirmation bias is an easy mistake to make).
"That means He is speaking to a Christian and showing them He wants them to befriend you or something like that. That's not taking away free will that's sharing His will with a person and them wanting to do it because they love Him."
No, actually it is in a few ways. If god won't reveal himself to me because it ruins my free will, then by showing himself to others he ruins their free will. If he is commanding them to proselytize to me or setting up the conditions for them to proselytize to me, then he is violating their free will, because he is not asking them to do it but setting them up to do it or commanding them to do it.
OMGF
'This is simply false. The first gospels were not written until around 70AD at the earliest. The last books of the NT were written well into the 2nd century."
What's your source?
Bart Ehrman and other Biblical scholars.
"No, actually it is in a few ways. If god won't reveal himself to me because it ruins my free will, then by showing himself to others he ruins their free will. If he is commanding them to proselytize to me or setting up the conditions for them to proselytize to me, then he is violating their free will, because he is not asking them to do it but setting them up to do it or commanding them to do it."
I never said God doesn't reveal Himself to unbelievers. He does. Muslims are having dreams and visions of Jesus and becoming followers of Him. He does reveal Himself. Revealing Himself does not revoke free-will, He won't force you to believe it's Him. You can have a dream of Jesus and believe it to be wishful dreaming. You can have evidence all around you and ignore it because you have predetermined in your mind that He cannot exist and any evidence of His existence or of Jesus Resurrection is faulty and impossible. You can continue to believe the sources of anti-Christian scholarship or you can look beyond their data to the truth. There is good evidence for the truth of the Gospel story concerning Jesus. It's your choice to reject it and Him or not. I don't expect you to accept it right off the bat, but I don't expect you to reject it without further research either.
Christ dwells within me, He guides me by His Spirit into truth. He can show me how He wants me to show His love to a beggar on the street or He can give me His compassion for someone's healing and I can pray for their healing. When you exchange life without God for life with God, His eternal life merges with your life and you become new in Him. Living life with God isn't a matter of following commands like I suddenly become programed, but a matter of me wanting His will to replace mine for I know that His will for my life is good and I trust in His goodness. I don't live for myself, but for Him. I willingly surrender my will to His. He doesn't make me do it. But I know Him and love Him and desire to live in Him and for Him.
Also, my healing isn't second hand, it's first hand. How do you explain instant relief of a severe sinus and upper respiratory infection upon receiving prayer? Not only that, but I was prone to such colds getting them every two or three months for years. After I was healed that day I did not get another cold of any kind for eleven months then I had a little cold. Three months later I had the flu and nothing more since then until today as I feel a little under the weather today. But I have not had the continual chronic colds I was having. I've received no medical treatment for the continual colds--only prayer. I had been taking over the counter stuff every four hours to no avail and needed none after it instantly left me. Not only did it instantly leave me I felt the sweet presence of God surround me and I felt like that for hours after the healing.
Karla,
"Revealing Himself does not revoke free-will, He won't force you to believe it's Him."
Then he has no excuse for not showing himself to everyone and letting us make an informed decision as to whether to follow him or not. To judge us on this without making the modicum of effort on his part is unjust. I don't think you can argue against this.
"You can have evidence all around you and ignore it because you have predetermined in your mind that He cannot exist and any evidence of His existence or of Jesus Resurrection is faulty and impossible."
He knows what evidence is necessary for all people to believe in him and he doesn't do it. It's as simple as that.
"You can continue to believe the sources of anti-Christian scholarship or you can look beyond their data to the truth."
Anti-Xian scholarship? Really? Don't you realize that most Biblical scholars go into that study because they are believers?
"There is good evidence for the truth of the Gospel story concerning Jesus."
And that evidence is? If you are going to point me to the "evidence" that you've used so far, then I will simply complain that you are using incorrect assertions that are not backed up by reality, as I've already done. You should study some of this yourself, and I don't mean that you should go to CARM or someplace like that. I mean that you should pick up some of the scholarly books (and no, Strobel and Ravi don't count) and actually find out about the real history of Xianity. Ehrman has done quite a bit of work in this area, and he's found quite a few things that would surprise you, like the story of Jesus where he says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," was completely fabricated and added to the Bible hundreds of years after the first writing.
"I don't expect you to accept it right off the bat, but I don't expect you to reject it without further research either."
I watched your videos...I'm willing to do some research here, and believe it or not but I've done quite a bit of research in my time. Did you know that the exodus never happened? No archaeological remains have been uncovered to corroborate the story. None. From where I'm sitting, you could stand to do a little more research yourself, especially being unaware of the dates of the writing of the NT, which is accepted by the vast majority of NT scholars.
"Christ dwells within me, He guides me by His Spirit into truth. He can show me how He wants me to show His love to a beggar on the street or He can give me His compassion for someone's healing and I can pray for their healing."
Or, maybe you are doing that yourself? Have you considered that?
"I can pray for their healing."
Apart from the absurdity of praying, what does prayer do? In studies it has been shown to have no effect.
"Living life with God isn't a matter of following commands like I suddenly become programed, but a matter of me wanting His will to replace mine for I know that His will for my life is good and I trust in His goodness."
I feel like a broken record and I don't think you will ever answer this question, but here goes: how do you know god is good?
"Also, my healing isn't second hand, it's first hand."
To me it's certainly second hand.
"How do you explain instant relief of a severe sinus and upper respiratory infection upon receiving prayer?"
I don't know enough about the event, nor am I a doctor. How do you know that it was supernatural?
"Not only that, but I was prone to such colds getting them every two or three months for years. After I was healed that day I did not get another cold of any kind for eleven months then I had a little cold."
I also know that our mental health can affect our physical health, that the placebo effect does help sometimes, and that we all get colds from time to time, and sometimes they come in spurts and other times they don't. At least in regards to timing, I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary here. Why did you get another cold at all?
"Three months later I had the flu and nothing more since then until today as I feel a little under the weather today."
I'm sorry to hear that you aren't feeling well. But, the three months later flu sounds kinda like slipping into your old pattern. I bet you don't see it like that though, do you?
"I've received no medical treatment for the continual colds--only prayer. I had been taking over the counter stuff every four hours to no avail and needed none after it instantly left me."
Perhaps you should actually test the power of prayer then. Set up a double blind experiment with control groups and see if you don't get the same results as other studies that have shown again and again that prayer doesn't work.
"Not only did it instantly leave me I felt the sweet presence of God surround me and I felt like that for hours after the healing."
What, specifically did it feel like? Perhaps a little bit euphoric? I ask because I've heard of some research where scientists have studied people's brains to find the source of religious inspiration (my wording) and found that some people can trigger endorphins by thinking about god. It's not god dwelling in you, it's a simple chemical process that happens when you exercise a certain portion of your brain.
Karla,
Since you haven't posted, I'm assuming that you are feeling ill. I hope you feel better soon.
I also hope you don't miss the article about the miraculous event that occurred to some journalists in Georgia (the country, not the state). Apparently, they came under fire, one even got shot in the eye, but after praying, they were saved. Here's the link. Did I mention they were praying to Allah? If one of them spoke to you and asked you how would you explain this obviously supernatural miracle sent from Allah, how would you respond?
Post a Comment