Reply With Quote
So science proved that Chesterfield leaves no unpleasant after taste?
Has that since been proven to be false by "science"?
I don't see any Intelligent contributions made by anyone on this subject besides myself and it's beginning to bore me a bit.
So science proved that Chesterfield leaves no unpleasant after taste?
Has that since been proven to be false by "science"?
You didn't answer my question. Are you honestly trying to knock the scientific method because there are people who will say anything to get money? Was there a consensus in the scientific community that cigarettes were healthy?
You're not intelligent enough to recognize the intelligent contributions.
That ad doesn't even claim that those cigarettes are good for you.
Now scientists have adapted the much maligned tobaccoTobacco could be GOOD for you:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz1sF9dzf8s
That article doesn't say anything about cigarettes being healthy.Now scientists have adapted the much maligned tobacco
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz1sF9dzf8s
Mouse is the smuggest bag on this site, and he doesn't even have any reason to be one.
Well I know a lot of atheist people in this forum that hates and makes fun of gay people. Not being religious doesn't mean you will not behave like them.
Hey kids lets play in the snow.
Mouse dodging again. No surprises here.
Doctor Says Trust Me, Cigarettes Are Healthy
http://open.salon.com/blog/jeffrey_d...ke_its_healthy
Congrats you made the Blake RedZero non intelligent reply list, now have fun talking to yourself.
Somebody ask Mark Allen here this question, since he is trying to run away from the argument:
Yeah, there's assholes in all walks of life, but that's not relevant to what I said.
Bible law is extremely harsh on gays (and endorses slavery).
There's no book of atheism that forbids the gays or endorses slavery.
No reply list: Blake,RedZero,The Skeptic,Woo Bum-konand MLewis
You are really getting upset that I'm calling you a stupid ing idiot?
You are also a stupid ing hypocrite.
I'm really busy and not following the thread so I completely missed you. I hope this is okay...
It depends on your definition.
For example, one of the people I remember the most was a woman who was blind. I know what you're thinking but I saw that she was blind because she and the people guiding her came up right in front of us. She wasn't just "legally blind" in the glasses-wearing sense of the term; she couldn't see a thing.
I don't think that her blindness would've been fixed on its own. Same for the cases I've heard of people regaining the ability to walk after being paralysed and stuff like that. I understand the position you've taken though.
Yeah I saw that study. Interesting reading. A bit of a flaw in my opinion though. In Christianity at least, it's not a simple matter of praying and having it happen.
While everybody's encouraged to pray, there are certain people who are given the ability to heal as a spiritual gift.
I thought the study reflected more self-identified born-agains as opposed to those who were actually gifted in that area. It definitely felt like the results would end up going by the law of averages otherwise and it looks like they did.
Not to nitpick, but I don't believe that happened to Moses. Abraham, yes. Jepthah did so unintentionally but it wasn't like God came up to him and told him to sacrifice his daughter.
I would also argue that the sons vs daughters thing was more cultural than anything else but there was a different case in the Bible where God allowed a man's daughters to inherit his property after his death in spite of the fact that they were women and everybody wanted to stop them. So I don't see why there isn't room for both.
I don't think he had that kind of a relationship with God.
Snipped for length. I was going to just PM you.
Again, I'm not convinced they had that kind of relationship though.
I was trying to be more objective but if you want my full take on this story I'll tell you:
You and I both agree that the sacrificing of the daughter was the wrong thing to do. Given God's behaviour with respect to this subject in similar situations (the Mosaic Law/ Abraham's situation where nobody died) I would think he'd be in agreement with us.
What has always caught my attention about this one, however, is how there wasn't really any direct communication in this instance. Jepthah was foxhole praying and then following through on what he promised no matter what the consequences were going to be. Hence the tragedy that unfolded. The thing is God never really said anything to him. He just took the victory in battle as a sign that sacrificing his daughter was his next course of action.
God doesn't step in and stop us from doing the wrong thing every time even if we end up hurting other people as a result of our actions. At the same time, the road to is often paved with good intentions. I see the Jepthah situation sort of like that. Ergo, the fact that he was offering the first thing out of his house as opposed to his daughter is a distinction that's important to me. It indicates a prayer that wasn't thought through very well as opposed to something more sinister.
That said, Jepthah's intention was to put God first and to keep the promise he'd made.
Since God says repeatedly that he looks at the heart above all else, I think he'd acknowledge that Jepthah's heart was in the right place even if he did end up making a horrible mistake.
God and Jepthah didn't have the kind of communication you see with Moses and Abraham. It just doesn't work that way with everybody. Plus Jepthah was more a regular person who was interpreting events as he saw fit and I don't think he was necessarily a believer at the time that this happened. I see him more as a strong and upstanding unbeliever or perhaps a person who grew up in a religious home but didn't take those beliefs fully to heart. The type of person you'd meet every day if you lived back then.
I just feel like this was a place where a little bit of knowledge (God) combined with ignorance (of Mosaic Law) ended up causing problems. Other than the use of his name, I don't think God really had anything to do with this incident.
It's the same moral system RandomGuy.
And as for the bolded, I know I've read that line somewhere before.
... and you still go with all the bull that has already been debunked, and simply declare "nuh-uh, it hasn't been debunked".
I know you troll for some things. That's OK, I can roll with that.
It is occasionally fun to show how stupid this is that you try to pass off.
At this point, though, I just don't feel it.
Either you are too stupifyingly ignorant to understand how dumb the you post truly is, or you are trolling.
Come back when you have some new . All this is just old, recycled garbage.
If you don't understand how this has all been debunked already, and how illogical it all is, google is that way. I'm not going to do your work for you.
If God answers medical prayers, then why do you need health insurance?
Simply think it through. If what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible is true, and if all the stories about medical miracles in inspirational literature are true, and if the cure of Jeanna Giese is true, and if your belief in God and the power of prayer is true, and if God has a plan for you, then why do you ever need to visit a doctor or go to the hospital? Why don't you simply pray for a cure whenever you get sick? In fact, why not pray preemptively every day -- "Dear God, I have faith that you will protect me from all illnesses today, Amen" -- and go through your life completely healthy?
The reason I ask this is because the statement that Jesus makes in Mark 11:24 is so simple:
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
So is what he says in John 14:14:
If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
There is this statement in Psalms chapter 41:
1 Blessed is he who has regard for the weak;
the Lord delivers him in times of trouble.
2 The Lord will protect him and preserve his life;
he will bless him in the land
and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.
3 The Lord will sustain him on his sickbed
and restore him from his bed of illness.
In Mark 16, Jesus talks about the laying on of hands:
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.
But even more remarkable is James 5:15, where the Bible says:
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.
These are powerful verses. Keep in mind, according to the Standard Model of God, that these are the words of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect God. And James 5:15 is completely unambiguous. If these words are true and perfect, it seems like a faithful person should have no need for health insurance.
----------------------------------
Let's simply look at an example. Imagine that the rate of remission for some particularly nasty type of cancer is 5%. That means that if 20 people get this type of cancer, it is almost always fatal. Only one in 20 of the people who get the disease will survive. Knowing this, you can see the reality:
[*]20 people contract the disease
[*]All of them have read James 5:15, so all of them pray.
[*]19 of them die
[*]The one who lives proclaims, "I prayed to the Lord and the Lord answered my prayers! My disease is cured! It is a miracle! I KNEW God would answer my prayers!"
[*]You never hear about the 19 who died. No one ever writes about that in a magazine. "Person prays, then dies" is not a great headline. And since they are dead, you will never hear from any of the people who had a deadly experience with prayer.
[*]Therefore, if you don't look at all the facts around the "answered prayer," and you only hear about the one out of twenty prayers that succeed, it appears that prayer is successful.
The fact is, people who pray die from this disease at exactly the same rate as people who do not.
We can see the reality of this situation simply by opening our eyes. But we do have to open our eyes -- We have to look at both the successes AND the failures of prayer to see the reality of our world. When we take a scientific approach and we do look at both sides, we see what is really happening.
When a prayer is answered, what is happening? It is nothing but a coincidence. We know this without a doubt in two different ways:
If we look at disease remission rates for praying people vs. non-praying people, and we control for all variables like income, known risk factors, etc., disease remission rates for the two groups are identical. People who pray for a cure gain no advantage from prayer.
We can take 200 sick people. With 100 of them we create a prayer circle and we pray for them. With the other 100 we do not. Then we look at what happens to those two groups of people. We find that both groups have the same outcome. The prayed-for group does not recuperate faster or live longer.
What the bible says about such things is fairly unambiguous.
It isn't cherry picking.
Find someplace where it says that prayer doesn't work, if you think any of this is cherry picked.
Sometimes seeing is believing.
All those people would have to do to claim a million dollar prize would be to prove their abilities.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
$1.2M actually:
http://www.randi.org/site/images/stories/evercore.pdf
Anyone with those kinds of abilities, if they were real, should want to prove this, and use the money for some good deeds or works.
Yet no one has come forward to take the money.
That is all it would take for me to believe this.
Just one, provable, do ented bona fide person with supernatural healing abilities.
Everytime anybody with an ounce of skepticism subjects healers to scrutiny, you end up with perfectly normal explanations that have nothing to do with powers granted by God.
Rationalization #1
Here is an explanation that you might have heard or used before:
The reason God cures thousands of cancers, infections, etc. each day but never intervenes with amputees is because it is not God's will to do that. It is not part of God's plan.
This explanation seems a little odd. Amputees really do seem to be getting the short end of God's plan if this is the case. If God answers prayers as promised in the Bible, and if God is performing all of the medical miracles that we read about in inspirational literature, then God should also be restoring amputated limbs. Why would God help cancer victims (e.g. Marilyn Hickey's mother) and people bitten by rabid bats (e.g. Jeanna Giese), but discriminate against amputees like this?
Keep in mind what Jesus promised:
If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]
If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]
Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]
Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]
Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]
There is no indication from Jesus that amputees will be ignored when they pray for medical help. The fact is, all five of these statements are completely false in the case of amputees.
The five quotes in the previous paragraph are all simple, straightforward statements. Doesn't "nothing will be impossible for you" mean "nothing will be impossible for you"? Jesus is God, and as an all-knowing being God knows how humans interpret sentences. If Jesus did not mean "nothing will be impossible for you," it seems like Jesus would have said something else. He also would not repeat that sentiment so many times. And Jesus is supposedly answering millions of prayers each day, so prayer-answering seems to be his intent
Sorry mouse, most of your trolls are on my ignore list. I'm not going to take the time to un-ignore them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
