All Will Be Made Alive

Motar
#61
"Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and do not forget all his benefits—who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good as long as you live so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s." (Psalm 103:1-5)

The ancient Hebrew King David ascribes disease control in his day to the Lord.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#62
King David was wrong, or at best, if he was right I'd have to say the Lord's doing a pretty poor job of it. According to U.N. statistics, some 9 million children around the world die every year before the age of five, mostly from assorted nasty infectious diseases, famine, and war. Just think about that number for a minute. 9 million a year... that's almost 25,000 a day, over 1000 an hour, one every 3 or 4 seconds. In the time it takes you to read this paragraph, some dozen or so children will have died, most of them in great fear and pain. Their parents, most of them, will have been praying for their children to be spared. Their prayers will not be answered. I can't respect a deity who allows so much unnecessary suffering, especially when according to the characteristics usually ascribed to him, he could put a stop to it in an instant. Either he can't, in which case he's not worthy of worship, or he chooses not to, which makes him evil in my opinion. The only remaining option I can see is that he doesn't exist, and then all that suffering becomes explicable.
 
Motar
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by Motar View Post

"who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases” (Psalm 103:3)

There is a curious link between sin and illness, forgiveness and healing in David’s testimony and in the testimony about Jesus. The Gentile physician Luke records:

“Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.” (Luke 5:23-25)
 
Cliffy
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by Motar View Post

There is a curious link between sin and illness, forgiveness and healing in David’s testimony and in the testimony about Jesus. The Gentile physician Luke records:

“Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.” (Luke 5:23-25)

The man healed himself. It had nothing to do with god or Jesus.
 
Motar
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

According to U.N. statistics, some 9 million children around the world die every year before the age of five, mostly from assorted nasty infectious diseases, famine, and war. Just think about that number for a minute.

If true, this is a tragedy, Dex.

Here is another man-made tragedy:

Abortion and public health: Time for another look

"Were aborted lives counted as are other human lives, induced abortion would be acknowledged as the largest single preventable cause of loss of human life."

Stephen A. McCurdy, M.D., M.P.H., professor and director, University of California, Davis Master of Public Health (MPH) Program; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis School of Medicine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102173/
 
Motar
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The man healed himself. It had nothing to do with god or Jesus.

"When they had made the prisoners stand in their midst, they inquired, 'By what power or by what name did you do this?' Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers of the people and elders, if we are questioned today because of a good deed done to someone who was sick and are asked how this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead. This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.’ There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:7-12)

Acts was penned by the Gentile physician Luke, Cliffy, a man of science.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#67
Yes, Luke was probably Paul's personal physician, but it's really stretching a point to describe him as a man of science. There were no men of science in his day, medicine was magic and superstition. It's always seemed inexplicable to me why any thinking person would accept a text written in a superstitious, pre-scientific, and largely pre-literate, age as authoritative on anything. There's no documented link between sin and illness, or forgiveness and healing, nor is there any evidence that any paralytic ever stood up and walked on command of a holy man. Why would you even believe that story? Luke's just repeating an oral tradition, it's not eyewitness testimony, neither he nor Paul ever knew Jesus. And I'm sure you're aware of how stories get made up and embellished and passed around, especially by people with an agenda. The Bible's mostly mythology, written and compiled for certain didactic and political and religious purposes, but to think its stories are literally true is to misunderstand it entirely.
 
Motar
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Yes, Luke was probably Paul's personal physician, but it's really stretching a point to describe him as a man of science. There were no men of science in his day, medicine was magic and superstition.

Thales of Miletus (624-546 BC)

First Scientist in History/Father of Science

https://www.famousscientists.org/thales/

https://www.greekboston.com/culture/...hales-miletus/
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#69
Thales is credited as being the first known person to try thinking in terms we would now recognize as scientific, i.e. seeking naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena. It also seems worth pointing out that he thought the earth must be a disk floating in a large expanse of water, despite certainly having the knowledge of geometry to prove that's not the case, and he thought that lodestones have souls because iron was attracted to them, hardly scientific ideas. He was an important influence on Aristotle, but the true essence of the scientific enterprise, probing nature by experiment to see how it really behaves, never really got anywhere with the ancient Greeks, they were not experimenters, so they got a lot of things wrong that they could have got right. Scientific thinking as we understand it did not begin to be widespread until around Newton's time.

In any event, none of this has any bearing on Luke's scientific credentials or the state of medical practice in his time. They were still working with the old Greek idea of the four humours, had no real understanding of disease, and were still taking seriously some role for the deity in illness and health. If Heaven were really interested in relieving human suffering, there should have been an explanation of infection and hygiene and a recipe for making soap or some other kind of anti-bacterial agent in the Old Testament.
 
Motar
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

In any event, none of this has any bearing on Luke's scientific credentials or the state of medical practice in his time. They were still working with the old Greek idea of the four humours, had no real understanding of disease, and were still taking seriously some role for the deity in illness and health. If Heaven were really interested in relieving human suffering, there should have been an explanation of infection and hygiene and a recipe for making soap or some other kind of anti-bacterial agent in the Old Testament.

“A major part of the Bible’s health instruction dates back to the time of Moses. Yet in our day, many researchers and medical doctors are stunned at the accuracy and effectiveness of its many provisions. The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia tells us that the laws given by God to Moses contain remarkable rules pertaining to public health which concerns us even today: water and food contamination, sewage disposal, infectious diseases, and health education. These issues were all dealt with in the Mosaic health laws.“

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-health.html

The book of Leviticus contains the greatest number of explicit prescriptions for health - too many for me to post here, Dex.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#71
That citation does nothing but offer sweeping claims without specifics, and following Hitchen's dictum that what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'm calling BS on it. I don't propose to re-read the whole of Leviticus to see what it says, but my secondary sources indicate that the Bible addresses only four conditions: leprosy, which was not understood at the time to be a bacterial disease, dry itch, whatever that is, freckles, and baldness. Diagnoses are made by a priest, who decides whether or not the afflicted person is unclean. The rules about personal hygiene are mostly about not touching unclean things, some of which make sense in terms of modern medicine, like avoiding the rotting carcases of dead animals, but they're presented as just orders, no explanation is offered. The only reference I could find to sewage disposal was the order to bury your waste when you're camping, not so much for hygiene reasons as, apparently, so God wouldn't step in it when he "walketh in the midst of thy camp." That's Deuteronomy 23:13-14.
Last edited by Dexter Sinister; Sep 16th, 2020 at 03:01 PM..
 
Motar
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

That citation does nothing but offer sweeping claims without specifics, and following Hitchen's dictum that what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'm calling BS on it.

Mr. Hitchens is a higher authority for you.
 
Dexter Sinister
#73
No he's not, he just offered an idea that seemed good to me, and unlike most people, I credit the source when I use it. I reject that site's claims because it offers no evidence for them, it's just a bunch of sweeping generalizations, doesn't provide chapter and verse citations to support any of them, doesn't even footnote the reference to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, which is just another self-serving evangelical text, like that gotquestions.org site, from the Moody Bible Institute. I concluded long ago, long before I encountered Hitchens' work, that the Bible is mostly mythology, so I won't accept it as an authority on how I should live my life, nor will I accept anything based on its presumed authority. The claim at that site you cited that the Bible provides a users manual for the human body is fatuous nonsense.
Last edited by Dexter Sinister; Sep 16th, 2020 at 05:53 PM..
 
Motar
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

No he's not, he just offered an idea that seemed good to me, and unlike most people, I credit the source when I use it. I reject that site's claims because it offers no evidence for them, it's just a bunch of sweeping generalizations, doesn't provide chapter and verse citations to support any of them, doesn't even footnote the reference to the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, which is just another self-serving evangelical text, like that gotquestions.org site, from the Moody Bible Institute. I concluded long ago, long before I encountered Hitchens' work, that the Bible is mostly mythology, so I won't accept it as an authority on how I should live my life, nor will I accept anything based on its presumed authority. The claim at that site you cited that the Bible provides a users manual for the human body is fatuous nonsense.

I am so blessed to know that you visited the site, Dex.
 
Dexter Sinister
#75
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, which I suppose only means I haven't the slightest understanding of what that sentence means. It eludes me how simply visiting a site could do anything for you.
 
Cliffy
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

That citation does nothing but offer sweeping claims without specifics, and following Hitchen's dictum that what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'm calling BS on it. I don't propose to re-read the whole of Leviticus to see what it says, but my secondary sources indicate that the Bible addresses only four conditions: leprosy, which was not understood at the time to be a bacterial disease, dry itch, whatever that is, freckles, and baldness. Diagnoses are made by a priest, who decides whether or not the afflicted person is unclean. The rules about personal hygiene are mostly about not touching unclean things, some of which make sense in terms of modern medicine, like avoiding the rotting carcases of dead animals, but they're presented as just orders, no explanation is offered. The only reference I could find to sewage disposal was the order to bury your waste when you're camping, not so much for hygiene reasons as, apparently, so God wouldn't step in it when he "walketh in the midst of thy camp." That's Deuteronomy 23:13-14.

Pigs were used to clean up the cities of human waste, that is why they were considered unclean and why most purists of all the Abrahamic faiths do not eat pork.
 
Motar
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, which I suppose only means I haven't the slightest understanding of what that sentence means. It eludes me how simply visiting a site could do anything for you.

No sarcasm intended, Dex. I am blessed by your scholarship. You cite your work. You investigate references and check their sources. Seeking after truth, you will find it.
 
Cliffy
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by Motar View Post

No sarcasm intended, Dex. I am blessed by your scholarship. You cite your work. You investigate references and check their sources. Seeking after truth, you will find it.

The truth is only relevant to the beholder. Your truth is not necessarily relevant to anybody else. It is pure ego that thinks their truth is the only truth. There are no universal truths. The moment your truth leaves your lips or your finger tips, it is only opinion to everybody else.

Each individual has different life experiences, beliefs, life circumstances, upbringings, etc. It is those things that colour your beliefs about and perceptions of reality. No two people are the same and neither are their perceptions. Belief is not truth. It is only your opinion. The Universe doesn't care what you believe, think or say. It is non-judgemental. We are just atoms in a much vaster organism of the all that is. What that is is beyond our finite minds to comprehend.
Last edited by Cliffy; Sep 17th, 2020 at 03:24 PM..
 
Motar
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The truth is only relevant to the beholder. Your truth is not necessarily relevant to anybody else. It is pure ego that thinks their truth is the only truth.

I am a truth-seeker myself, Cliffy.
 
Cliffy
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by Motar View Post

I am a truth-seeker myself, Cliffy.

If you were, you would read all the holy texts out there, not just one or those that support your views. The Vedas, the Bavagad Gita, the Koran, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, even Hitchen's and other books of philosophy. There are thousands of holy books. Each contains a piece of the puzzle. Not one has the whole truth. If you are going to be a seeker, then seek. Your truth is where ever you find it.


A friend used to paraphrase PT Barnum, "There is a seeker born every day."
 
Dexter Sinister
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Pigs were used to clean up the cities of human waste, that is why they were considered unclean and why most purists of all the Abrahamic faiths do not eat pork.

I've often suspected that's the explanation, it comes down to, knowing what a pig will eat, would you eat a pig? Lot of people say no. Pigs also carry some pretty nasty parasites, like trichinosis, and no doubt it was noted that some people who ate pig got very ill or died horribly.
 
Cliffy
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

I've often suspected that's the explanation, it comes down to, knowing what a pig will eat, would you eat a pig? Lot of people say no. Pigs also carry some pretty nasty parasites, like trichinosis, and no doubt it was noted that some people who ate pig got very ill or died horribly.

Pigs are like humans in that they will eat just about anything. When I lived out in the bush we had pigs that were turned loose to feed off the forest. They were about as organic as meat can get. They tasted like it too.

BTW: cannibals call humans "long pigs" for a reason. Would you eat a human knowing the kind of crap they eat?
 
Motar
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

If you were, you would read all the holy texts out there, not just one or those that support your views. The Vedas, the Bavagad Gita, the Koran, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, even Hitchen's and other books of philosophy. There are thousands of holy books. Each contains a piece of the puzzle. Not one has the whole truth. If you are going to be a seeker, then seek. Your truth is where ever you find it.
A friend used to paraphrase PT Barnum, "There is a seeker born every day."

This is a sincere question, Cliffy. Do you embrace all faith traditions except Christianity?
 
Motar
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

I concluded long ago, long before I encountered Hitchens' work, that the Bible is mostly mythology, so I won't accept it as an authority on how I should live my life, nor will I accept anything based on its presumed authority.

This is a sincere question, Dex. Would you consider yourself atheist or agnostic?
 
Dexter Sinister
#85
Short answer: no.

Long answer: I don't really like either of those terms, their definitions seem to vary a lot depending on who you're talking to. Agnostic just means without knowledge, and as I indicated in a previous post, I don't know whether there's a deity or not so the word might seem to apply. It seems highly improbable to me that there's a deity, and I don't believe there is, but the word seems to have been stretched to mean not only do we not know, we can't know, and I don't think I'll ever accept that latter idea. Atheism means without belief in a deity, and I'm certainly that, but it too has been stretched into meaning believing there isn't a deity, which, as I stated before, I think is logically indefensible. So I don't use them much as labels for myself, though sometimes atheist is a useful shorthand if I'm conversing with people I believe know what I mean. Agnostic I will never apply to myself. Otherwise though, I'll be more specific, depending on context: skeptic, humanist, rationalist, whatever seems appropriate to the nature of the exchange.
 
Cliffy
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by Motar View Post

This is a sincere question, Cliffy. Do you embrace all faith traditions except Christianity?

I think that all religions have some truth in them. A wise man once said to me, "The bible is like a gold mine. You have to get rid of the overburden in order to find the gems." It is the same with all books, with all teachers. Nobody has a handle on the truth.

Have you ever read the red letter bible? The words of Jesus are in red. If you read them, you will see that modern Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus and just about everything to do with the writings of Paul. I call it Paulianity. Has a nice ring to it for a double entendra, doesn't it?
 
Motar
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

I think that all religions have some truth in them.

I would agree, Cliffy. The general revelation about God in creation is available to all. (Romans 1:20)

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Nobody has a handle on the truth.

Also, true. No one has an absolute knowledge of truth. Now we know in part. (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Have you ever read the red letter bible? The words of Jesus are in red.

A red-letter Bible is a great study aid, Cliffy! The Holy Spirit is even better. (John 14:26)

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

If you read them, you will see that modern Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus and just about everything to do with the writings of Paul.

Luke commends the believers in Berea for fact-checking Paul. (Acts 17:11) Paul recommends that believers follow Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

Have a blessed day, Cliffy.
Last edited by Motar; Sep 19th, 2020 at 09:37 AM..
 
Motar
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Short answer: no.
Long answer: I don't really like either of those terms, their definitions seem to vary a lot depending on who you're talking to. Agnostic just means without knowledge, and as I indicated in a previous post, I don't know whether there's a deity or not so the word might seem to apply. It seems highly improbable to me that there's a deity, and I don't believe there is, but the word seems to have been stretched to mean not only do we not know, we can't know, and I don't think I'll ever accept that latter idea. Atheism means without belief in a deity, and I'm certainly that, but it too has been stretched into meaning believing there isn't a deity, which, as I stated before, I think is logically indefensible. So I don't use them much as labels for myself, though sometimes atheist is a useful shorthand if I'm conversing with people I believe know what I mean. Agnostic I will never apply to myself. Otherwise though, I'll be more specific, depending on context: skeptic, humanist, rationalist, whatever seems appropriate to the nature of the exchange.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, Dex.
 
Cliffy
#89
 
DaSleeper
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post




https://scontent.fyka1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...5a&oe=5F8F0274
 

Similar Threads

1
Man, Not Alive
by Locutus | Aug 16th, 2013
1
Alive Day Memories
by Zan | Sep 17th, 2007
11
Bin Laden: I won’t be taken alive
by I think not | Feb 21st, 2006