I'll do a little snipping of quotes to make things easier on my poor mind
I think partly, any correlation is likely to be more obvious when somebody is prayed for in their presence. In many cases, being prayed for in person is the first case where somebody is actually prayed for. Remote prayer is more often an ongoing thing when God hasn't immediately healed somebody.
It's rather a confusing idea, even if we let alone the concept of a prayer to God being the same thing regardless of distance, wouldn't one prayer be enough? If you're sincere enough (and God would know, surely) then God would note it and take it on board and he'd either answer it or not.
This is assuming that God intended the laws of nature to be the only thing He'd need to achieve His purposes for the world. I tend towards the view that the laws of nature are simply the way God usually chooses to run the world rather than something fundamentally built into it and functioning independantly of Him. 99% of the time they're the way He wants it to run. But occasionally He'll choose to do something different.
Hm I appreciate that... a being infinitely powerful, infinitely complex and able to see the future would however see all eventualities however and incorporate them into his original plan though, surely? As I observed, if God truly has these powers then the only reason he'd need to change the Universe he made (through interfering) would be if he didn't create it right first time round.
Not at all. God picking and choosing who to heal is built into the Bible's teaching on healing. There's one incident in the gospels where Jesus goes to a pool which was rumoured to have healing powers - when the waters stirred, so people believed, the first person in would get healed. Jesus healed just one of the people sitting around the pool. If God was expected to heal everybody of everything (as your question supposes), why didn't He heal all those around that pool? Because He doesn't work like that.
So God was a jerk in the oldun days too? I'm sorry if that sounds crude, but it's essentially the gist of what you related to me.
I'd say that there is some reasoning behind it, just not one God's chosen to reveal. Oh, and neither person A nor person B actually deserves God's help.
I'll ask why but I think we deal with this topic a little farther down...
Not conspiracy. Simply stuff that modern people automatically dismiss as mythology. It's a demonstrable fact that most books on church history do not recount much in the way of supernatural phenomena. However, there are plenty of examples of reports of them from contemporary accounts.
Okely dokely, the remit I recall was:
"God performed rather a large number of large miracles (parting seas, destroying peoples, blowing up cities etc.) in the era 4000BC - 0AD. He has performed very little in the way of such huge miracles since."
By all means at your disposal, demonstrate to me if you would the contrary
I don't have a particularly high view of "nice". The Bible's portrayal of God is that He is Holy as well as loving - it's something that doesn't fit with Western cultural ideals, it's something that's not comfortable, but it's something that is inherent to the nature of God as seen in the Bible. I think CS Lewis's Narnia stories summed up the issue of God being "nice" quite well : "He's not a tame lion, but he is good."
Yes, I thought we ran across this idea again (from further up). Given the number of people he kills, yet considers murder a sin, and the number of people he allows to die in present day all I can tell you is whether the Bible says this is a fantastic arrangement or not, this God doesn't sound very much worth worshipping.
So why do you? I think we come onto this point further down also
Just because He could do it doesn't mean that He should do it, though. Why should God force the likes of, say, Richard Dawkins, to accept His existence?
Good question! Personally if I had the power Richard Dawkins would be one of the last people I'd want to 'save'. However, doesn't God want the best for us? Or doesn't he give a hoot what we do and how we end up? If he wants the best for us, wouldn't a good first step to accepting the 'right' way of living be demonstrating his existence and imparting this knowledge without distortion to its intended recipients?
No He didn't. Sin is falling short, missing the mark, it's a corruption of what God has created. It's an absence of God.
Seeeeee below :3
Man chose to sin, it's our fault for doing so. God holds us responsible for our own actions and by that token we are all guilty and deserving of judgement. Saying "it's God's fault" is passing the buck rather than owning up and taking responsibility.
You're ignoring my point- God created all things and if he is all powerful he knows all that will happen. God creates us, gives us the ability to do bad, gives us the tools to do bad and gives us the inclination in the full knowledge that we will do bad.
The problem with such an omnipotent God is that he must surely be responsible for his creations?
Well on that issue, grateful that God has opened my eyes, and sad that other people are still unable to see. Which is pretty much how most people feel about issues that are important to them which others disagree about.
So you feel sad for people who don't see it that way- you pity them? Why do you pity them? If people are happy in their lives, why need they pity?
How do you feel about your relation to these other people? Are you a mentor to them? Do you feel that you are on a different 'level' to these people?
Hm, so you're wasting time worrying about whether you're wasting your time.
Whoever said worrying was a waste of time?
It's concerns over various ends, outcomes and uses which govern many of my decisions- hardly a waste :3
Are you saying that you've experienced more of that kind of thing than I have, or is this hypothetical? I don't think that would mean that God would favour you more or less than He favours me. I don't think He works like that.
Why shouldn't he? He's happy to ignore various pleas for suffering or for some of his subjects to be born blind to his divine light, why shouldn't he play favourites with certain creations, or have different purposes for them in such a capacity as to 'reveal' different things to them?
The actual question was hypothetical, as I've no idea what would constitute a God-like event for you- maybe you could furnish me with some criteria and I'll give me brain a ransack?
Hierachies of the world?
I pointed out some examples of supernatural events, you didn't even consider the possibility of them being supernatural.
That's not entirely true, is it? I offered you explanations more grounded in observations which have been studied and recorded- the idea of supernatural explanation (as I've alluded to a couple of times) doesn't just include God- it includes pixies, elves and magic.
I'm curious to know how you think one group of individuals believing they can 'see' more than the others, or 'knowing better' may shape the social standing of different groups depending on their behaviour (whether or not it complies with this higher knowledge) or their beliefs (whether or not they correlate to those accepted as accurate)?
God holds us accountable for our actions. He doesn't force us to do good or to do evil. That's our decision. I don't think that God knowing the future prevents us from being held accountable for the choices we make. I don't think God creating the universe prevents us from being held accountable for the choices we make.
That's fine, I'd like to hear your reasoning though.
I put it that God creates all things, therefore he creates the stimuli that shape our lives, the chemicals in the womb that affects our minds and the events that form our perceptions. He is the cause of everything and all things happen according to his Grand Plan (whatever that may be). Therefore any sins we commit must also be part of this plan, as God knows (expects?) us to commit them (since he knows the future) and chose to put the capacity for the sin in our path in full knowledge of what we will do with it.
In fact, wouldn't God knowing the future make the entire concept of free will an irrelevancy? Either the future is fixed and God can see it or it is not and he can't.
We don't deserve heaven. End of story.
So you keep on telling me, but I still don't understand why. We carry on as part of God's plan which he created, crafted and put into motion. He controls all things and is the first cause for everything- every action, consequence and reaction traces its path back to God. Therefore we are part of this scheme. Why would God decide to treat us so harshly when we're only doing what he's told us to?
Or do you mean "I don't deserve heaven"?
So you're saying that I have to believe in absolute predestination with no level of human responsibility or free will? Why? If I make the decision to do something wrong, surely it's me rather than my parents, family, friends, teachers, society, etc. who influenced me who takes the blame for it.
According to human laws, yes. Human laws are incapable of taking into account the infinite computations and degrees of affectation which may have influenced your wrongdoing. God, however, could.
So why doesn't he? Why is he so constrained by such a human notion of law?
Adam and Eve had the capacity to choose for themselves. Knowing what they would choose doesn't mean forcing their hand.
But he created them, body and soul. He created their ability to sin, he created the situation for them to sin and he knew what would happen when all these things were in place.
That does sound pretty predetermined to my mind.
Ultimately, the Bible teaches that God turned the existence of sin into something far better than what would have been without sin. The apostle Paul puts it like this:
Romans 5.20-6.2 wrote:0Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
God's response to sin ultimately eclipses the negative impacts of sin. But that in no way absolves us of our own responsibility.
I'm confused, didn't God plan for there to be sin then? Surely God, if he created all things and knows all of the future, must have known what would happen- why did he need to incorporate new ideas to take it into account?
If God exists, then the chance of that audible voice being God speaking is much greater, if He doesn't it's much smaller.
Well, no. If he doesn't exist then the probability is zero. If he does then yes, the probability is greater but it's very easy to have somehting greater than nothing
There's no reason at all that even accounting for God's existence the probability of the 'voices' coming from him should shoot up to anything like 'probable'- that's implied conjecture.
A perspective that falls neither way is clearly mistaken.
So the concept of weighing equally probably (or improbable) events as equally likely is mistaken? It's practical, I would have thought.