Posted by on February 23, 2011 at 18:17:28
In Reply to: Re: Rigor, Plain and Simple posted by CB on February 23, 2011 at 14:03:10:
CB:
I did find relief. Thanks. It’s still there. I still need to lose some weight, or there remains the possibility of re-injury, and so on.
Personal aging and entropy are unavoidable for all of us, along with the possibility of future injury, sickness, death and so on—we all have to die of something. I won’t be a big strong man forever; I’m sure.
My Dad is 83 now, and he’s extremely frail; bless his heart.
And, I have plenty of unhealed health concerns—but I am not the “Healing Answer Man”, nor do I claim to be.
I can’t get the “before” X-rays right now; although they do exist, or may still exist (I don’t know), in the last orthopedist’s office I visited. They may have gotten rid of them; though—it was about 12-13 years ago.
In truth, you really don't care; do you?
That’s a lot of work, to prove what I already know to be true; against, like I said, your false premise—incomplete middle—begging the question—circular argumentation chain of un-provable presumption, which is what ALL rationalist—materialism is, is demonstrably an extremely weak argument, and an even weaker refutation.
No one can collect a universe-full of data; obviously, in order to fist establish any vaidity for ANY kind of rationalist-materialism.
Actually it’s nearly impossible to collect data on the ENTIRE Earth itself to prove ANY model; but especially that which supports atheism and disbelief in God; or even “Christian unbelief”.
Several quite sound theodicies have been posited throughout Christian history, all based on sound science and irrefutable logic; although the atheists don’t like that fact. I have never seen any anti-God “theodicies” hold any water logically/scientifically. Here, I like the work of Alvin Plantinga ( ).
I can defend a short-day creation logically, as well as honest physics and chemistry. In the physical creation, right after God said, “Let there be light!” measurable physical realities began, which can be measured to a great extent today; though not exhaustively in a “universe without a center” which can easily be posited in the face of an Almighty God.
I think that therein lies your philosophical stumbling block—you pretend to have a logical reason to disbelieve, and you honestly don’t have one—or at least won’t admit it yet—it has gone past “Check!” and Checkmate!” as well, though you cannot see it yet because of your own apparent agenda with God at this time.
I do wish you well in your acquisition of “unfeigned faith”—I really do. And I am really not trying to insult or offend you; just to “give an answer to [you] of the REASON for the hope that [I] have.”
Seriously, and again obviously, no one can reverse universal entropy, or the unavoidable reality of “Delta-G” in ALL reactions ever observed and analyzed accurately and honestly.
And ALL honest unbiased data really DOES point to “intelligent design”; not its opposite, ATHEISTIC rationalist—materialism. You seem to be taking the position of a “practical atheist” without admitting it.
So we do come back to the un-tenability of unbelief; refuted by the reality of the receiving of strength in my knees which I have not had for many years—deal with it.
“Well…” yourself! ;-).
As far as acceptance of the things of God post TF, we of that history should all be very careful—Hebrews 3:12-14 says, “”Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;”
“If” is a big word—we have to continue exhorting one another towards genuine faith, not just vaguely leave it as something existing only as a memory of our time in the cult; which "education" replaced. 1Tim 6:20: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called".
That’s really spiritually dangerous, and unrealistic, as well as philosophically fraudulent/dishonest.
Since science has not produced a time machine, no, one cannot “objectively” (under YOUR apparently pseudo-scientific definition, establish the central facts of the Gospel, although Luke, writing Acts, said that the resurrection witnesses called the proofs that God did provide “infallible” (Acts 1:3), and that there were many of them, done, as you said.
And I have studied very closely the wirings of many, many very solid Christian apologists/writers on this very subject, as well, including NT Wright. He is hardly the ultimate authority on the subject.
I really don’t think that you understand that you do not have a very philosophically sound grasp of the meaning of “OBJECTIVE”. Atheism’s adherents toss various meanings of it around like a game of “button, button—who’s got the button?”; avoiding realites which easily pierce the balloon of their bad science/philosophy.
TRUE philosophical objectivity/absolute certainty is IMPOSSIBLE—it’s just a philosophical concept, along the lines of early Greek Sophist and Euclidian-based plane and solid geometry.
They tried to make a literal religion of geometry, and were really PISSED that Pi did not equal a “perfect” 3.0; because it messed up their untenable religious presumptions about their math versus measurable/observable reality.
ALL “objective” data are measured/analyzed subjectively by someone—period. No rationalist—materialist, especially the atheistic kind, can possibly get around that fact.
I experience the presence of God on a regular basis—don’t you? I have received valid answers to prayer on a regular basis—haven’t you? In TF, I once prayed for some footwear, and around the next corner immediately after the prayer, I found a pair of perfectly-fitting cowboy boots—and you have to MAKE those babies fit—these fit like a glove.
I have HUNDERDS of stories like that from over the years, in and out of the cult—that is the NORMAL Christian experience, for me. You couldn’t MAKE it any more “objective”, by the fairest definition!
Your definition relegates, and reframes “in a position to be objective and unbiased about the matter” to within, as I stated, your own philosophically fraudulent BAD LOGIC CHAIN of “false premise—incomplete middle—begging the question—circular argumentation chain of un-provable presumption”.
You, LITERALLY, have NOT DEMONSTRATED AT ALL, especially logically, the force of any argument behind your assertion that “Therefore, I have no REASON to assume something miraculous has taken place.” You actually have no reason NOT to; you just won’t admit it.
Your position is merely double—talk, since you state that “I don't think your claim of a possible miraculous healing is a hoax, but that doesn't mean you've provided sufficient evidence to support your claim.”
You argue continually in a circle, and seem to pretend to "throw me a bone".
Which is it? You don’t think it’s a hoax (which you KNOW is unarguable Scripturally), or you are just complaining about evidence which is “sufficient”, even in mere ARGUMENT, ONLY TO “LITTLE OLE’ YOU”! ;-)
I’m just trying to exhort you as best I can! I’m sorry you have decided to make the “debate” unproductive.
I wasn't debating. I'm convinced because of recent experienc. You believe/disbelieve because....?
I’m EXTREMELY cognitive, with a high IQ, and I guess I can’t help approaching discussions in an academic way—it does make some people defensive.
We TF—exers who went on to get our educations can sometimes have a chip on your shoulders. Do you? I don't think I do--hope not, anyway.
I do notice you did not address my points head—on. Why not?
Last note—abandoning the discussion seems a little arrogant; don’t you think?
I’m just asking. I’m not trying to force a reply, or to offend you—really.
Sincerely,
OT2
PS Question: So, you’re sticking with “Lord, I believe—help my UNBLIEF!”?