Saturday I was instant messaging back and forth with my sister-in-law. She asked me to pray for her as she had a pain in her head all day. It was early afternoon when we were exchanging instant messages. I asked her if it was akin to a headache or something different. She said it was different. I asked her to put her hand on where it hurt and to tell the pain to go in Jesus name. I waited for her response on the instant messenger. Then I saw “it worked.” Actually surprised, even though I believe in healing, it never ceases to amaze me, I wrote to confirm and asked her if there was any pain left. She said no. She said she did what I asked her once and almost all, but a small twinge of pain instantly left. Without any instruction from me, she did it a second time and all the pain was gone. She said it hadn’t stopped all morning until just then. We continued to talk for another twenty minutes on the instant messenger at which point she had to go. I asked her once more before she signed off if all the pain was still completely gone. She said yes, it was just fine.
34 comments:
Please get help from a qualified psychiatrist.
I have headaches and other pains that come and go all the time. I'm glad her pain went away, but that's hardly miraculous.
The verification word is "racisms" how strange. ;-)
You can choose to see it that way. I don't.
I choose to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster relieved her pain.
It's no more implausible than the idea that Magic Sky Daddy did it.
"You can choose to see it that way. I don't"
And that is precisely what it comes down to in my experience.
I experience good things and they are just good things. My theist friends experience good things and attribute them to God.
I experience bad things and they are just bad things. My theist friends experience bad things and they are being refined or tested or something.
Regardless of your world view it still rains some days and the sun shines on others.
I would think it would be enough to make them wonder why my experiences are nearly identical.
Actually most headaches are caused by dehydration. Was she drinking anything at the time?
Also - wouldn't you think God would have something more important to do than cure people's headaches?
Mike, there is a difference of perspective at work, but that doesn't mean because we see the same thing two different ways that they are both the right way to look at them. I am sure there are instances of that such as the proverbial glass half full or half empty. Both would be true the only difference in that situation would be perspective.
However if we were talking about the cause of the level of liquid one may insist it was always that way, another may insist it started out full and half was spilled, another may say someone drank half, another might say something different. But in that situation there would be a definitive cause that our perspectives based on experience may determine correctly or incorrectly. If every glass of water I ever saw was at half volume, I might think it normal. If most I saw were full and then came upon this odd half glass, I might have cause to wonder.
Headaches don't usually go away instantly. I once had headaches quite frequently and they were quiet severe. They would fade away gradually with pain medicine, or sleep, but they would not suddenly stop hurting except in the few occasions they left with prayer. I remember one such occasion. . . I had a horrendous headache and I was at youth gathering that met every Thursday night in my youth leaders home. At the end of the meeting, my head still pounding, we took prayer request. The leader closed in prayer. He was seated next to me. At the very end of his prayer he asked God to heal me and reached over and laid his hand on my back, it felt extremely hot, at the moment he touched my back the headache was completely gone. I had full relief after hours of pain.
Moreover, as one who believes in God, I believe in praising Him for everything and in everything no matter the circumstance. So if my headache left because of pain medicine instead of prayer I would praise him for that too, but I wouldn't call it a divine healing or a miracle.
You may attribute circumstances in your life to no one, but that doesn't mean that there is no one to thank. Identical circumstances with different perspectives doesn't equate to proof that God isn't behind things.
"Also - wouldn't you think God would have something more important to do than cure people's headaches?"
I think God cares about our headaches and even paper cuts. He doesn't run out of the ability to do so. His compassion is great. Scriptures say that He knows even when a sparrow falls from the sky. Even a bird doesn't go unnoticed by the Father.
karla said: Even a bird doesn't go unnoticed by the Father.
Maybe so - but you'd think he'd prioritise a bit more, what with all the death & destruction going on in the world.
A god that 'cures' headaches and does nothing about much worse things doesn't exactly get my vote of confidence.
"Moreover, as one who believes in God, I believe in praising Him for everything and in everything no matter the circumstance."
Do you believe in Satan? Satanic counterfeit miracles? I know I did, that was the only way I could explain miracles that came from other faiths I didn't believe in.
"So if my headache left because of pain medicine instead of prayer I would praise him for that too, but I wouldn't call it a divine healing or a miracle. "
That makes sense, if God made the materials that the medicine were made out of then he would be one to thank.
""So if my headache left because of pain medicine instead of prayer I would praise him for that too, but I wouldn't call it a divine healing or a miracle. "
That makes sense, if God made the materials that the medicine were made out of then he would be one to thank."
Except it leads to special pleading as we thank god for anything and everything good but forget to credit him with things that are not good. It's called counting the hits and ignoring the misses or alternately painting a bulls-eye around the arrow.
I believe there is a real fallen angel called Satan that leads the demonic forces. And that demonic powers can counterfeit miracles. This is different from faking them, it is a real supernatural event. I also believe that some reports of miracles are fraudulent, and some are just mistaken. I also believe that some are the real deal. A healed headache could be coincidence, pain medicine, relief of stress etc. But it could also be God and as God was asked to heal it at that moment I accept that it was God. Remember though the arm growing out testimony, that can't be wishful thinking, stress relief, pain medicine, multiple delusions of the same event, etc.
Anon, I believe in praising God no matter the circumstances.
It seems atheists often use the evil in the world as reason for God's non-existence or failure to be a good God if perchance He exists, while at the same time ignoring the good in the world or equating it to human progress. Why is that?
karla said: demonic powers can counterfeit miracles. This is different from faking them, it is a real supernatural event. I also believe that some reports of miracles are fraudulent, and some are just mistaken. I also believe that some are the real deal.
How do you tell the difference? How can anyone else tell the difference?
karla said: I believe there is a real fallen angel called Satan that leads the demonic forces.
But presumably you don't believe that the two forces are equally matched?
karla said: It seems atheists often use the evil in the world as reason for God's non-existence or failure to be a good God if perchance He exists, while at the same time ignoring the good in the world or equating it to human progress. Why is that?
Because the fact of good in the world does not indicate the existence of God in the same way that so-called evil in the world calls into question the existence of a *good* God. If God was capable of both good *&* evil then the existence of evil wouldn't be a problem for his believers to 'explain' away.
"It seems atheists often use the evil in the world as reason for God's non-existence or failure to be a good God if perchance He exists, while at the same time ignoring the good in the world or equating it to human progress. Why is that?"
Because humans are not perfect and all powerful, and are not capable of ending all the world's suffering with a mere thought.
Karla,
"Anon, I believe in praising God no matter the circumstances."
So, I suppose you praised god for the attacks on 9/11? How about the tsunami a couple years ago around Xmas time? Did you praise god for that? Did you praise god for giving your sister a headache before praising him for healing it?
"It seems atheists often use the evil in the world as reason for God's non-existence or failure to be a good God if perchance He exists, while at the same time ignoring the good in the world or equating it to human progress. Why is that?"
Once again, you show that you don't understand the arguments being made. You aren't asserting a god that is sometimes good or does good things every once in a while, you are asserting an omni-benevolent god. In order for your argument to work, you have to explain away any instance of evil.
In effect, what you are complaining about is that you're being called out on your special pleading.
CK,
"How do you tell the difference? How can anyone else tell the difference?"
I've asked that myself. Get ready for a whole lot of non-answers.
Notice how Karla immediately decided that because god had been asked to heal this headache, that it must have been god. She never entertains the possibility that it might have been Satan playing a trick (or some other natural means, which I throw in here only because I know that if I don't, Karla will say something inane, along the lines of, "Oh, so you admit something supernatural is happening!") This is an explicit demonstration of her special pleading, how things that she finds to be good are necessarily from god, while other things are necessarily not, with no evidence. It's amazing how they always seem to line up precisely with Karla's preconceptions about what god should or should not do, however.
When you are in relationship with someone you learn what they are like and what isn't like them. Someone can tell me a story about my husband and I can pretty much know whether it was in character for him or if they might be telling a tall tale or messing up the facts. Of course, with humans they can do something out of character, but for God, He is always Himself.
When you are in relationship with someone you learn what they are like and what isn't like them. Someone can tell me a story about my husband and I can pretty much know whether it was in character for him or if they might be telling a tall tale or messing up the facts. Of course, with humans they can do something out of character, but for God, He is always Himself.
Anon, I am not asking you or anyone else to accept this or any other testimony I have given as a miracle. You can believe what you want. Just because I write about it doesn't mean you have to even care enough to comment or read it in the first place. I wanted to share it, that's all.
Anon, of course I don't praise Him for 9/11 or natural disasters. I never indicated I thought He caused them.
I only meant that I praise Him despite my circumstances. He is good no matter what I am going through. He remains good and faithful and no matter what happens to me, I know I am eternally safe in Him.
If God controlled everyone and kept everyone doing only nice kinds things to each other causing perfect harmony, I think you would still find cause to complain. You might think all humans are naturally good and have no need for God and still think there was no God.
"Anon, I am not asking you or anyone else to accept this or any other testimony I have given as a miracle."
And this has what to do with what I wrote?
"Anon, of course I don't praise Him for 9/11 or natural disasters. I never indicated I thought He caused them."
Special pleading.
"I only meant that I praise Him despite my circumstances. He is good no matter what I am going through. He remains good and faithful and no matter what happens to me, I know I am eternally safe in Him."
Special pleading and begging the question.
"If God controlled everyone and kept everyone doing only nice kinds things to each other causing perfect harmony, I think you would still find cause to complain."
Tell me, is there any logical reason why one person should be able to cause harm to another?
And, I'm glad that you try to conflate my argument by calling it "complain[ing]." What a dishonest rhetorical trick. This isn't about complaining, it's about logical consistency, of which you have none.
"You might think all humans are naturally good and have no need for God and still think there was no God."
It doesn't matter what I might think, it matters what you can prove, and you don't seem to be able to prove any of your assertions, so you turn around and use dishonest rhetoric in calling my arguments about your bad arguments "complaints" and hope that no one notices that you don't actually have a good answer. Typical.
"When you are in relationship with someone you learn what they are like and what isn't like them. Someone can tell me a story about my husband and I can pretty much know whether it was in character for him or if they might be telling a tall tale or messing up the facts."
What if your husband were leading a double life and lying to you all these years? What then?
What if the entity that you think is god and that you've communed with all these years has really been a devil leading you astray from the true god Allah?
How do you know that a supernatural entity can't fool you into thinking you are really talking to god when you are not? IOW, some times when you think you've talked to god or felt him or whatever, it could have been him and other times it could have been a devil tricking you. If that devil has powers beyond this natural world, who is to say that those powers can't be enough to trick you, even though you think you know god as well as you know your husband (or better really)?
I can come up with all kinds of questions you can't answer.
”What if your husband were leading a double life and lying to you all these years? What then?”
That would be pretty difficult since we are together all the time. However, humans can be duplicitous, but God could not be, or He wouldn’t be God. We’ve been over this. The greatest possible being would necessarily be perfect in all respects.
”What if the entity that you think is god and that you've communed with all these years has really been a devil leading you astray from the true god Allah?”
So you want to posit a different supernatural being in order to defeat my argument for God’s existence? Do you understand how this isn’t logical reasoning?
”How do you know that a supernatural entity can't fool you into thinking you are really talking to god when you are not?”
Yes, I could get fooled. My fallibility doesn’t change His infallibility. Again you are suggesting a supernatural being in order to give argument against the existence of God. Yet I believe you maintain that there most likely are no supernatural beings whatsoever. Why is it you need to utilize the possibility of one to defeat a possibility of another?
“IOW, some times when you think you've talked to god or felt him or whatever, it could have been him and other times it could have been a devil tricking you.”
So you are agreeing that it’s possible sometimes what I have experienced could be God, but at other times it could have been the devil? And on both counts you are accepting their existence? If you want to argue against the existence of anything supernatural, why not find a natural explanation instead of trying to invoke other supernatural possibilities.
“ If that devil has powers beyond this natural world, who is to say that those powers can't be enough to trick you, even though you think you know god as well as you know your husband (or better really)?”
For one the devil isn’t omni-present, he can only be affecting one person at a time. I guess I could be that one in a trillion. I will assume you mean the devil or one of his demons. . . Each of your questions are invoking supernatural possibilities. . . Also the devil isn’t in the business of leading people to Jesus. So if what I experience points or draws me to Jesus, it is not the work of the devil or his demons. If it points me towards sin, or something that is pointing away from the path of Christ that would be more his style.
”I can come up with all kinds of questions you can't answer.”
I just answered those.
"If you want to argue against the existence of anything supernatural, why not find a natural explanation instead of trying to invoke other supernatural possibilities."
Because it's just as logical that any of these other supernatural things exist. Just because a mishmash of 66 books says your god is the one true god, doesn't make it so.
"That would be pretty difficult since we are together all the time. However, humans can be duplicitous, but God could not be, or He wouldn’t be God. We’ve been over this. The greatest possible being would necessarily be perfect in all respects."
Good try, but implicit in this is your assumption (begging the question) that the being you are communing with is a god that can not lie to you. That's what you were asked about, and you "answered" by simply asserting that god can not lie to you so you can know that it is god. But, you have no assurance that god can not lie to you, nor that the being you have been communing with all these years has not been lying to you about being god.
"So you want to posit a different supernatural being in order to defeat my argument for God’s existence? Do you understand how this isn’t logical reasoning?"
Do I have to put in the disclaimer that I'm not actually positing supernatural entities into every single sentence? I mean, c'mon! And, you do realize that this doesn't actually answer the question, right? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are supernatural entities speaking to you. OK? Now, how do you know that it isn't Satan misleading you from the one true god Allah? Care to actually answer it this time instead of taking infantile jabs?
"Yes, I could get fooled."
Then, your argument is defeated.
"Yet I believe you maintain that there most likely are no supernatural beings whatsoever. Why is it you need to utilize the possibility of one to defeat a possibility of another?"
I don't. You are positing that you talk to god and that you can't be wrong about that, so it's entirely open to me to suggest any other suggestion that might show you to be in error. I have done that, and you can no longer say that you know you are talking to god. Thanks for playing.
"So you are agreeing that it’s possible sometimes what I have experienced could be God, but at other times it could have been the devil?"
Although I don't believe that god exists, I don't think I've ever said that it is not possible that gods and devils exist. Your attempt at gaining a cheap rhetorical point is duly noted.
"And on both counts you are accepting their existence?"
No, not at all. Again, do I have to write a disclaimer every single time or are you smart enough to understand my arguments without having your hand held?
"If you want to argue against the existence of anything supernatural, why not find a natural explanation instead of trying to invoke other supernatural possibilities."
If you understood logic, you would know why I have argued as I have. I don't need to try and convince you that a natural explanation solves all your psychological issues of talking to imaginary friends. You've made specific claims that I can argue against even without believing that any of the arguments are true. And, I have successfully done so, considering that you've admitted that you could be fooled. End of story, you no longer can claim that you know that god talks to you and still claim to be honest.
"For one the devil isn’t omni-present, he can only be affecting one person at a time."
Ha ha ha, where do you get this? And, how do you know that the devil isn't targeting you regardless?
"Also the devil isn’t in the business of leading people to Jesus."
If Jesus is a false god he might be. Again, you beg the question by assuming that Jesus is the way.
"So if what I experience points or draws me to Jesus, it is not the work of the devil or his demons."
You are also assuming that your interpretation of "the way" is the correct path, so even if Jesus is the way, you may still not be following the correct path to Jesus. It's just more begging the question.
"I just answered those."
You tried on the first, you dodged the second, and you answered the third...only your answer completely destroyed your argument, so yeah, when you answered the third, you gave up your position. I give you props for actually answering the third. I now predict that you won't admit how damaging it is to your argument (completely destroys it).
Mike said "Because it's just as logical that any of these other supernatural things exist. Just because a mishmash of 66 books says your god is the one true god, doesn't make it so."
I don't see how my asserting that God exists means that it's fair game that multiple gods exist. Or that throwing multiple other gods into the mix aids the discussion. That is if you guys are in the discussion seeking truth, versus just to argue. I think you are one who is seeking truth rather than wasting time arguing.
Karla,
Just because you don't understand logic doesn't mean that we are simply trying to argue. If you really want to get at truth, then you should be open to the arguments that show that your arguments are logically fallacious. It's rather disingenuous to accuse others of not wishing to seek truth while not being willing to move one iota from one's position regardless of the facts, arguments, etc. That is exactly where you stand right now in your firm assertions that not only is god real, but that your idea of god is the only idea of god (the True idea) and that everyone else is wrong until they adopt your preconceptions.
Anon, we've been over this. God by definition is unchangeable, so lying is not in His nature. God is necessarily good. God being the greatest possible being of which no greater can exist. The greatest possible being would necessarily be perfect. If such a Being exist, He would have to be good. Yes that is circular, it grants His existence. I know that arguing for His goodness, is not an argument for His existence. But if the God I am positing exist, then it is also posited that He is good. So your repeated arguments against His goodness are not holding up as arguments against His existence anymore than my arguments for His goodness prove His existence.
Furthermore, my fallibility does not have any bearing on his infallibility. I can mishear God. I can be wrong about what I think He has said to me. I can be not paying attention and not hear Him. I can be fallible and am fallible in many ways. That has no bearing on whether He exist or weather He is speaking.
FYI, I'm not infallible, I do not have all knowledge, I am not asserting I have the absolute handle on truth, even if it were possible for me to know all that is earthly possible about God and living as a follower of Christ I would still only know in part and not know fully. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I am confident about some things and those things are extremely valuable and important to me and I want to help other people find the path of truth. I will fail at doing that. I will disappoint people in my attempts. I will say the wrong thing sometimes. You can decry my attempts and my knowledge and my character if you want to. You never have to believe a word I say. It's all okay with me.
As brash as Anon can be, I don't think he is arguing just for argument's sake.
"I don't see how my asserting that God exists means that it's fair game that multiple gods exist. Or that throwing multiple other gods into the mix aids the discussion. That is if you guys are in the discussion seeking truth, versus just to argue. I think you are one who is seeking truth rather than wasting time arguing. "
The problem is that people believe in many gods, and most of them do not believe in each others gods. So all the God talk requires a lot more than just YHWH.
"Anon, we've been over this. God by definition is unchangeable, so lying is not in His nature. God is necessarily good. God being the greatest possible being of which no greater can exist. The greatest possible being would necessarily be perfect. If such a Being exist, He would have to be good. Yes that is circular, it grants His existence."
I didn't call it circular, I called it begging the question. IOW, you've assumed that which you are trying to show.
"But if the God I am positing exist, then it is also posited that He is good. So your repeated arguments against His goodness are not holding up as arguments against His existence anymore than my arguments for His goodness prove His existence."
This makes no sense. If you argue that god is good and I show that your argument fails, then if it necessarily follows that god must be good in order to exist, we can deduce that the god you propose does not exist. What you are claiming here is that no matter what argument I use against his goodness, it can do nothing to show or disprove his existence, which is simply wrong.
Let me say it another way. You are claiming X (god exists), and also Y (god is good). You are further claiming that these (X and Y) are contingent upon each other, meaning that you are claiming both X and Y must be true or else neither is true. If I show that one is not true (I have attacked Y and shown it to not be true) then by your own argument, X would also not be true. I'm the one who has said that they need not be linked.
"Furthermore, my fallibility does not have any bearing on his infallibility. I can mishear God. I can be wrong about what I think He has said to me. I can be not paying attention and not hear Him. I can be fallible and am fallible in many ways. That has no bearing on whether He exist or weather He is speaking."
I predicted correctly! Because you are fallible, you can't know that it is god speaking to you and not something else. Hence, your argument is destroyed. Again, thanks for playing.
"FYI, I'm not infallible, I do not have all knowledge, I am not asserting I have the absolute handle on truth, even if it were possible for me to know all that is earthly possible about God and living as a follower of Christ I would still only know in part and not know fully."
Then stop acting as if your religious interpretations are necessarily correct.
"I am confident about some things and those things are extremely valuable and important to me and I want to help other people find the path of truth."
There's a difference between confidence and certainty and you err on the side of certainty. If you said that you believe, and are confident in that belief, that god speaks to you, then there would be less to talk about. You don't say this, however.
"You can decry my attempts and my knowledge and my character if you want to. You never have to believe a word I say. It's all okay with me."
Nice try, but it's not about attacking you personally or trying to discredit you. It's about the arguments that you are putting forth and your inability to support those arguments. It's about you making statements of certitude that you can't possibly back up. For instance, because you have admitted that you can be fooled, you now can not assert that you know when god is speaking to you, because something could be fooling you. This is an assertion that you could not support.
Mike, okay I'll accept your vouching for Anon's interest in truth despite the brashness.
Anon, you could help me out a little by lightening up on the personal verbiage that sounds to me more like attacking me or my communication style and not just addresses the argument. I see you address the argument in the mix of it all, but couldn't we keep it to the argument? Tone doesn't communicate well on here and you can come off rather harsh at times and I would like to keep things cordial if you would be so kind.
"Nice try, but it's not about attacking you personally or trying to discredit you. It's about the arguments that you are putting forth and your inability to support those arguments. It's about you making statements of certitude that you can't possibly back up."
Post a Comment