Realitywins
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2016
- Messages
- 2,445
- Reaction score
- 275
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
But not all miracles are lies or physical impossibilities; they're miracles. I'm not going to waste time in pearl-casting here and am going to say only that there are rational reasons to have faith.
How can you just say it's a lie when your alternative explanation is magic? Should we get in the habit of explaining away everything we can't comprehend with the idea of magic? What a tragedy that would be for humanity, to retreat into ignorance in the face of an intellectual challenge. That's how we USED to do things and it never worked out for us.
What you are trying to deny is called abiogenesis. There are many scientists who believe that, unlike magic, it offers the most rational explanation for how life began. Others think that life was seeded here, accidentally or on purpose, by life from other planets, possibly carried here on space debris.
Regardless of how it actually started, your idea of life being magically "poofed" here is how cave men explained it. It is profoundly antithetical to the intellectual progress of humanity and is, in fact, a slap in the face of every person who has ever tried to rise above the dogma of their time to truly understand their world in some way. The age-old struggle to learn has been in opposition to traditionalist morons, all along the way. In great irony, as you enjoy the luxuries and security that thousands of years of honest enquiry have brought you, you selfishly snub your nose at modern science. I don't know how you can even feel good about existing within such a juvenile, conflicted world view.
If something viewed as miraculous occurs, it doesn't mean it is a miracle. The religious simply try to interpret it that way as proof their imaginary god is real. But in fact anything like that which occurs is simply natural or it wouldn't occur.
Even doctors use the word "miracle."
Even doctors use the word "miracle."
Even doctors use the word "miracle."
They're being truthful if they're stating their belief that what they have witnessed can only be described as a miracle that is beyond medical science. I don't like your trying to insinuate that someone is lying if he or she says, "Yes, it is indeed divine intervention."
They're being truthful if they're stating their belief that what they have witnessed can only be described as a miracle that is beyond medical science. I don't like your trying to insinuate that someone is lying if he or she says, "Yes, it is indeed divine intervention."
I could tell you about the top of a femur that had been eaten away/hollowed out by a neoplasm which spontaneously regenerated itself.
But I won't.
Miracles and aliens with green horns have one thing in common: they are seen only by the believers - typically low end people with their teeth missing. Miracles never happen at Fermi Lab, and aliens never land at O'Hare.
If I were God, I would do my best to show the non-believers that they are wrong. Showing miracles to the believers seems like a colossal waste of effort. Like trying to convince me not to vote for Hillary. I already got it.
Let's be practical. How much effort would it take to convert hardcore atheists to believers as compared to what it took to create the Universe? A walk in the park on a sunny day.
And, then, there is the question of misapplication of God's efforts: why bother staining a wall in an Italian village to make it appear like a crying Mary if, right behind that wall, there is a child dying of leukemia?
To me, that is beyond embarrassing.
It must be remembered that the child had to live with Leukemia first before he died. Often sick and dying children say the most profound things, while an atheist may grow old get Alzheimers and die. Which one lived a fuller more productive life? Which ends up with the bigger reward in the end if there is a GOD, and which is cried over more if there is not? I think in either case it goes to the child.I like when someone says God helped them find their keys or something mundane like that while the kid next door dies of leukemia or an entire country full of kids starves for generations. Yeah...that god dude has a hell of a sense for priorities.
It must be remembered that the child had to live with Leukemia first before he died. Often sick and dying children say the most profound things, while an atheist may grow old get Alzheimers and die. Which one lived a fuller more productive life? Which ends up with the bigger reward in the end if there is a GOD, and which is cried over more if there is not? I think in either case it goes to the child.
that sounds messed up on a couple of levels
This one takes the cake.
To canonize John Paul 2, Vatican was forced to find a witness to a miracle attributable to him. Actually, they needed two.
So they found a woman who claimed that she was miraculously healed by JP2 - after his death. I guess if the dead can vote in the US, some can do miracles.
Strangely, JP2, who could do that from his grave, failed to perform one on himself while he was still alive. Or at least ask God to do it for him.
I am sure that with his record of good deeds done for others, God wouldn't mind a little selfishness.
I apologize if anyone here feels I am spoofing a religion, but the whole subject is so ridiculous that it's hard to find a classy way to debate it.
I don't think you understand anything about who John Paul II was or what he said about redemptive suffering.
Dr. Bennetts and I are talking about life after death, about hope, and about children's amazingly similar visions only hours, or moments, before they die.
Listening to children foretell their own deaths, and then hearing them comfort the parents they will leave behind, has changed Dr. Bennetts' life. Never in her 15 years of treating children with cancer has she found a child's premonition to be wrong.
When Geni Bennetts tells me some of these children's stories, her eyes, and my own, cloud with tears.
Seven-year-old Danny had leukemia. He was hospitalized at CHOC and was not expected to survive. His friend, Timmy, had died not long before.
Late one afternoon, Danny's mother was at his bedside as her son slept. When he awoke, Danny found his mother in tears.
"Don't cry," Danny told his mother. "Do you see my angel? She's outside my window. She's telling me that she is going to take me to Timmy. She says that Timmy and I are going to go fishing."
Danny died later that night.
Some of the children that Dr. Bennetts tells me about have come from religious homes; others have not. All of them have been on medication, but their visions, reported matter-of-factly between more prosaic talk of everyday life, belie the suggestion that they spring from a drug-induced haze.
"We in medicine have seen people hallucinating," Dr. Bennetts says. "It isn't like that. These children are perfectly lucid."
The number of children who have had peaceful visions of their own death is impossible to know. Dr. Bennetts, however, is not the first to publicly talk about them.
Dr. Diane Komp, a specialist in oncology and a professor of pediatrics at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, is writing a book about similar experiences with her young patients.
After publishing an article in Theology Today in October, 1988, which spawned further publicity, she says many parents wrote to tell her of their children's peaceful deaths after experiencing such visions--during their waking hours or in their dreams.
"I think the impartation of peace from these experiences is what has had the most impact on me," says Dr. Komp, who has been practicing medicine for almost 25 years.
The Catholic church knows all about suffering having caused so much of it over the last 1400 or so years. They admire suffering so much they even sainted the bitch of Calcutta for causing all the pain and suffering she caused.
Non-responsive. Non sequitur.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?