The Christian Hell

[skasian]

You may be right. Let me put this another way. Are God's values the same as His children's, the ones with free will? The reason I ask is because we spend a lifetime trying to understand God.

First, I want to point out that I am not sure if every mankind is considered as His Children, but I however think we all are as we were created by Him.
Now God's values are perfect, all truthful and flawless. However as mankind is the opposite, and all mankind are unique therefore I think the sets of values are vastly diverse. So I think that mankind has different values from God as all of our values are able to be contaminated by evil. However a devoted follower of God I believe will have same values of Him because this devoted follower has the knowledge of Gods value and they will do everything in their power to maintain the same values that God has.
I think every one has freewill because every decisions are made by us. The word destiny can contradict this, but I think that destiny exists because God already knows what we are going to choose in life.
It is true that we spend a lifetime trying to understand God, I believe this is because we have a innate sense of belonging, a yearning to be loved by a higher power, the creator of our beings. Its like the innate response of an adopted child, when she or he feels the urge to find their true, biological parents. I think, deep in our spirits, we are all born with that innate response or feeling that there is a Heavenly Father that looks over us and love us. Of course it would depend on the person on how these innate response effects their belief in religion, but I do believe that is the reason why people search for God even if it means spending a lifetime to find and understand Him.

[bazarov]

First, I want to point out that I am not sure if every mankind is considered as His Children, but I however think we all are as we were created by Him.

If we are all created by Him, then probably we all are His Children. Right?
That's not matter of my opinion; merely rational conclusion.

[The Atheist]

Atheists like yourself needs personal experience in order to believe even though clear things of the impossible may be happening in front of their eyes.

Yes, well as I frequently tell people, I walk around with both eyes open all the time.

The downside to that is that I have to look for evidence and proof and never just accept what those eyes tell me.

When something impossible happens, I'm quite sure I'll hear about it.

You've mentioned Dante before; so you surely know there are three parts of Heaven.

Yeah, but it depends whose theology you use.

So if science can't explain it it just didn't happen or it is fraud? No other possibilities?

Of course - the other possibility is a genuine miracle.

The things which are usually held up [by fundies] as miraculous things inside their church are:

Speaking in tongues
Laying of hands
Curing the sick.

All of these things have been studied by thousands of scientists over many years.

Speaking in tongues is a bad joke. Ask a linguist.

Laying of hands. Now, this one's quite a lot of fun, because the people are "possessed" and the demonds flee at the laying of hands. Impossibly subjective and easy to act. We know religious delusion exists - and I do mean the psychiatric illness rather than believing in god/s - and it's not too long a stretch to think that a delusional believer might actually benefit from thinking his/her demons had been excised.

Curing the sick. Where's the evidence? If the people are sick, you'd expect they've been to the doctor, right? Where are the doctors? Even in NZ, dozens of people are allegedly cured of ailments at churches every single week.

Where the hell are they?

Along with that, the identical methods and results are obtained by Benny Hinn and stage hypnotists. But the fundie church ones are real...

Yeah, right.

No evidence, clear evidence of fraud. Not much decision required.

At least the RCC are a bit more robust, with a recognised dozen or so miracles from Lourdes out of hundreds of thousands of claims. I don't trust their methodology, because it doesn't account for spontaneous remission or blinding of results, but I will at least have some respect for an organisation which uses some form of transparency in its claims of miraculous cure.

I'd like the fundies to consider the RC processes for a start. They have to include doctors' reports, it takes years for verification and recognition as a miracle has to be approved by several different people/groups before approval and admission. Fundie churches, on the other hand, do miracles every Sunday morning & afternoon and occasionally on Wednesdays.

We know each other for long time I also think that sometimes nature does it, maybe some men is just stronger then cancer or something (it's not all on God, I guess); but there were some really unexplainable cures which happened in the moment when some priest or group of people prayed for them, like NikolaiI mentioned; and there are numerous cases like that. How to explain them? You can't blame people for blaming God; who else could they blame?

Hell, it's human nature to look for reasons for things, which is why religion is so damned ingrained into people.

Without details, I wouldn't try to say exactly what did happen, but the closest analogy I have is that often in tragedies - earthquakes, fires, etc - survivors attribute their survival to their god. Do the families of the dead victims blame god for it? The hell they do - they sit and say "Oh, god moves in mysterious ways." God must have a great PR guy, because he gets it both ways!

As I said earlier, I've personally attended sessions where miracle cures were alleged, but it looked like cheap chicanery to me. People should go to more magic shows - much more realistic than some hacks on an altar.

In the end, this thread's a good example of claims of miracle cures by god/s - loads of claims of miraculous cures, but not one single shred of evidence.

What?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

Sorry, I know they exist - there have been electric vehicles & milk carts for decades.

What I meant was an electric car of any use to anyone.

They have very limited range, take forever to charge, and are very expensive.

The technology needs a jump. The proponents were hoping that lithium batteries was it, but it's still not enough and as all there is left are refinements to technology which isn't good enough, I think we're going to need someone to invent a new battery or charging process for it to ever happen.

[dzebra]

If the people are sick, you'd expect they've been to the doctor, right? Where are the doctors? Even in NZ, dozens of people are allegedly cured of ailments at churches every single week.

Where the hell are they?

If they were planning on going to the church to be cured, they would not need to go to the doctor. The doctor wouldn't know.



There are several different definitions of miracles, and I think you are using a definition like "an event that can't be explained scientifically or logically."

I have a different definition of miracle, but I can't put it into words just yet.

I do agree with you that in the present time, I have not seen any miracles by your definition, where we disagree is you seem to be saying they never happen, and I only say that I have never seen any.

[The Atheist]

If they were planning on going to the church to be cured, they would not need to go to the doctor. The doctor wouldn't know.

If that's the case, that would be disturbing for two reasons:

One - if they're not sick enough to go to the doctor, how do we know they're sick to begin with? It also doesn't gel with people who are dying. One would presume that if someone is dying, they have probably been seen by a doctor first.

Second thing is that I would be extremely concerned if people were going to church instead of the doctor. We live in a quite sophisticated country with top-class doctors and this would be a return to witch-doctoring and as I already noted, people have been convicted for failing to provide medical care by trying prayer instead of medicine.

There are several different definitions of miracles, and I think you are using a definition like "an event that can't be explained scientifically or logically."

Well, that's the only description which matters. Certainly, there are medical miracles and miraculous escapes, but if we're talking about divine miracles, then they must be outside of science by their very nature.

I have a different definition of miracle, but I can't put it into words just yet.

Let me know how you get on!

I do agree with you that in the present time, I have not seen any miracles by your definition, where we disagree is you seem to be saying they never happen, and I only say that I have never seen any.

Yep, I'm quite happy to say that they've never happened. Given that the best evidence we have of divine miracles is some flawed research and conclusions from the RCC, I will keep that opinion until some evidence is provided.

I won't say it's impossible - as with the existence of god/s - but I will go with vanishingly unlikely. A googolplex to one against is how I normally express it.

[Pendragon]

Anyone who has any sense goes to the doctor. This doesn't negiate that miracles can and do happen. I have seen this personally, but the proof would be harder to produce. Proof is a difficult thing to find in miracles.

In the case I'm thinking of, I saw a broken hand, verified by the doctor as broken that day healed. The man did go back for his check-up next day, after removing his arm restraints in my presence (his idea, not mine, I can believe in something, but I'm never foolish enough to suggest such radical matters). The doctor said the hand was healed, the doctor being unsure just how. But then some would say maybe the x-ray was misread or something of that sort, that perhaps the hand wasn't that badly injured. So proof becomes a matter or what I myself believe and the man who was healed.

I pray for people, but I don't advise them not to see a doctor. The act of healing, whether natural, medical, or by prayer could all be considered a miracle.

[bazarov]

Yeah, but it depends whose theology you use.

RCC(Roman Catholic Church, I guess)?

Fundie churches, on the other hand, do miracles every Sunday morning & afternoon and occasionally on Wednesdays.

Mulder and Scully once investigated similar case It was fraud, lucky you..

Without details, I wouldn't try to say exactly what did happen, but the closest analogy I have is that often in tragedies - earthquakes, fires, etc - survivors attribute their survival to their god. Do the families of the dead victims blame god for it? The hell they do - they sit and say "Oh, god moves in mysterious ways." God must have a great PR guy, because he gets it both ways!

In the end, this thread's a good example of claims of miracle cures by god/s - loads of claims of miraculous cures, but not one single shred of evidence.

Agree, first part still bugs me; it just ain't right. Second; miracles have no proofs, otherwise they wouldn't be considered as miracle, more like an unusual happening (aurora borealis, eclipse etc for example).

If that's the case, that would be disturbing for two reasons:

One - if they're not sick enough to go to the doctor, how do we know they're sick to begin with? It also doesn't gel with people who are dying. One would presume that if someone is dying, they have probably been seen by a doctor first.

Second thing is that I would be extremely concerned if people were going to church instead of the doctor. We live in a quite sophisticated country with top-class doctors and this would be a return to witch-doctoring and as I already noted, people have been convicted for failing to provide medical care by trying prayer instead of medicine.

You misunderstood dzebra. Those people, sick or dying; had visit doctors but doctors couldn't help them. So they tried with church. And after that, some were cured. So, first doctors and science, and after that church and God. Where else could they go?

Anyone who has any sense goes to the doctor. This doesn't negiate that miracles can and do happen. I have seen this personally, but the proof would be harder to produce. Proof is a difficult thing to find in miracles.

In the case I'm thinking of, I saw a broken hand, verified by the doctor as broken that day healed. The man did go back for his check-up next day, after removing his arm restraints in my presence (his idea, not mine, I can believe in something, but I'm never foolish enough to suggest such radical matters). The doctor said the hand was healed, the doctor being unsure just how. But then some would say maybe the x-ray was misread or something of that sort, that perhaps the hand wasn't that badly injured. So proof becomes a matter or what I myself believe and the man who was healed.

I pray for people, but I don't advise them not to see a doctor. The act of healing, whether natural, medical, or by prayer could all be considered a miracle.

Excellent Pen!

[Rush_of_Blood]

If we are all created by Him, then probably we all are His Children. Right?
That's not matter of my opinion; merely rational conclusion.

Not necessarily.....

John 8:31-47



So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?"

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father."

They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did." They said to him,"We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a er from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God.The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

[Redzeppelin]

Being presented with option A and option B, and telling me that if i dont choose option A, i go to Hell, is not freedom.

"Freedom" does not mean three or more choices, and it doesn't mean you have to like either choice; it simply means you have a choice.

Freedom is absolute.

Says who? Have you read Plato? Are you familiar with how our legal system works? Nobody has absolute, total freedom. All of us have limited freedom in order to live peaceably among each other.

And freedom should not be built on the basis of fear.

I have bad news for you: human beings are generally consequence-driven creatures. We are capable of altruism, but we also tend to do as we wish if there are no real consequences for our actions. As such, all of us - including you - make decisions based upon potential consequences. Many people don't smoke because they fear cancer. Many people avoid crime because they're afraid of jail. Don't expect me to believe that you think the world could operate in some way where criminals will not commit crime because of altruism. Your life is not devoid of decisions based upon consequences.

If God truly loved his creations, he would appreciate the beauty of the ability they have to choose their own paths. With, or without him.

Translation: "God should let me live in whatever way I please without consequence." If that cannot happen here on earth, why should God make it so in the afterlife? God cannot change reality from what it is: hell is not created as a place of hellfire and agony - it is a place that honors your choice to not live in God's presence - annihilating sinners does the opposite. So, ironically, God - in creating hell - honors your freedom to reject Him. But if you reject Him - and the universe is filled with Him (because He created it) then where can He put you to honor your wish to live without Him except by "quarantining" you in hell? God can't change the fact that without Him is only darkness, emptiness, bitterness, regret.

You know, i know in my heart, that i am a good person. I have done many great things in my lifetime, and i have helped many people. I have made my mistakes, and i take responsibility for them.So why must i go to hell? because i dont believe or accept? so be it.

But according to the Bible, our "good deeds" are like "filthy rags" when placed next to the utter perfection of holiness that is God. We cannot "earn" our way into God's graces by being "good." We attain salvation by accepting the gift of eternal life that Christ purchased through his death for all of us. Hell is not a destination for those who did bad things as much as it is the chosen location for those who do not wish to submit their lives to God's will.

If God indeed does send his creatins to hell, simply because they dont accept or believe - he is not worthy of either his title, or his place in the hearts of people. And in my opinion, is no better than a murderer.

I assume your sentence up above intended the word "creatures"?

It is not merely "not accepting" or "not believing" - it is the sustained and persistent refusal to acknowledge the Holy Spirit's conviction on our hearts that God is our creator. He created us - therefore He has a right to call his creations to Him; refusing to honor that call is like a child who refuses to acknowledge the authority of his/her parents. Again: God doesn't "send" people to hell - THEY CHOOSE IT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO SERVE GOD; they wish - as you have expressed here - to live according to their will instead of God's. That choice gives God no choice but to honor that wish by quarantining the sinners into the only place in the universe that they can escape from the Being they wished to avoid. You can't see the logic in that?

You think that accepting God simply frees you from your mistakes?

No, it doesn't. Accepting God does, however, offer me forgiveness and to start anew, because all offenses are - ultimately -against God.

I am a good person.

Why do you insist on repeating this? How does it matter? Hell isn't about being "good" or "bad" - it's about whom you choose to serve in this life; that choice is either God, or yourself. Period.

Perhaps someone who has done more good than many christians. But what's the difference? i dont need to accept God, to know i am a good person.

According to the Bible and Jesus both, nobody but God is good. And I would never brag that I thought I was a better person than "many nonbelievers" or "many Moslems," or "many anybody." Why do you do that?

And "goodness" in you is there because of God's presence in your heart.

And if indeed such a heaven and hell do exist, i will not simply turn around and "accept" god, to save myself from eternal damnation - that would be false, a cop out, a lie.

To an extent, you're right; as such, the fear of hell converts nobody in any permanent way - just as the warnings on cigarette packs don't deter all people from choosing to smoke. But for some people, that warning is the catalyst that points them in a new direction. The fear of hell can't sustain you, but it may make you think a bit harder.

Perhaps that makes me more of a person, and i believe it does. If you want forgiveness for your sins, your HUMAN mistakes, because that indeed, is what you are. It is not God you should turn to, but the person, the people, yourself who you have wronged.

Those we have wronged deserve our apologies and restitution - but all offenses, all sins, all crimes are ultimately against God. We do need His forgiveness because His forgiveness is the only one that actually "rights" or "restores" wrongs. Our human forgiveness cannot do that.

It is their forgiveness you should put energy into obtaining, because you dont get off that easily. You cant bring pain and suffering and expect to be forgiven because you "accept" jesus christ.

God's forgiveness does not relieve us of the consequences of our actions. He may forgive us for killing that person while driving drunk, but He still lets us go to jail.

Why should i, a person who has committed good - made yes, mistakes, but takes responsibility for them, be damned to hell?

There you go again with that "good" comment -

over say, a person who has done so much wrong, but simply accepts and believes? If indeed, god gave me freewill, i have exercised it, and i have exercised it well, i do not see why he would punish me for it.

Once again: heaven and hell are not about behavior. They're about who you choose to serve.

You can not give a creature the ability to choose, and find their own path, and then punish them. People who exercise their free will to find their own beliefs, to live a good life, with or without jesus and god,..and whatever else may exist, should be celebrated not frowned upon.

But if God created the universe and is the author of reality and He tells us the consequences, why are you so bugged about them? Your argument is based upon the idea that God could just let you reject Him and continue to have a good life; but without God there is NO good life because all goodness, all beauty, all love, all that is worthy - COMES FROM HIM. He can't give you things if you reject Him when the things you want come from Him.

If god is willing to send innocent people to hell because they dont believe in his existance, than he is not worthy of neither his title, or his place in the hearts of others.

Nobody is completely innocent - even "good" people like you. It is not believing in God that's the problem - it is the persistent and sustained refusal to believe despite the evidence that God gives you.

Nothing is deserved, it is earned. And if a divine place, or a state of perfect existance is out there, beyond this life, than i deserve to be there.

If God worked off that principal, we'd all be condemned to hell. Luckily, since God is love, He sacrifices Himself - in the person of Christ - to pay the penalty of sin we all owe, so that we are forgiven and can inherit eternal life simply by accepting that God is our rightful master. You want justice, but not applied to YOU.

What makes you deserving of anything? As a sinner (like me), you deserve death (like me). Christ's sacrifice allows you and me both to live eternally in the presence of God if we so choose.

How dare anyone tell a person who has earned their keep, their place - that they are not worthy of a state of peace, or a place of peace, because they dont believe or accept Jesus, God..or bigfoot.

That's the problem. The Bible makes it clear that our own efforts at goodness are insufficient to "earn" our way into heaven. Nobody gets there because she/he "deserves" to be there - they are there because God has extended a magnificent, and free, gift. But you don't have to take it if you don't want to.

The "bigfoot" comment was disrespectful and unnecessary.

[billyjack]

The "bigfoot" comment was disrespectful and unnecessary.

it was neither. her comparison is quite right. many happen to worship big foot. and they got news for you...if you don't choose him, you can be sure you'll spend eternal damnation as one of the provokers who's messin with Sasquatch in the jack links commercials. rather than a book to prove their beliefs, they have film evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXEE...eature=related

[CeeJay]

In fact it is not just Jesus, there are others too the Buddha, Krishna, Mohamed and the like.

This idea that one's God is the only one that can be a savior and the rest are not leads to or led to all acts of Violence. We must have a wider perspective to love others' gods, beliefs. This idea is close to fanatics, fundamentalists.

I love Krishna, the Buddha, Jesus on an equal footing. I do not weigh up their significance as saviors incarcerated by narrow sentiments, geographical, racial or cultures. I can enter Guru Dwara, the Buddhist monastery, the Church and Masjid with the same feelings and warmth. Do you still consider me as an atheist by your standards or definitions.

hey, Blaze. Good to hear your opinions. You are not an atheist. Even the dictionary can tell you that. You are a Theist, though I do not know whether you are a monotheist or Polytheist. The difference is belief. You love Krishna, Buddha and Jesus all the same, right. And you refuse to believe that there is a difference. Well, it sounds like nothing we tell you here may persuade you, except you have concrete proof. Go ahead and try the three religions, maybe one for each week or one for each month, and tell the difference yourself. Then you will know which one is true. I am confident that if you will try this little experiment, you will be amazed wt what you will discover.

But also realize that Hebrews 11 says: "faith is the ...evidence of things not seen" and "without faith it is impossible to please [God], for he who comes to God must first believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him". This is because God is not seen [at least not with human eyes], and you need faith to believe in God. You do not need to believe in something you already see; in that case, there is no need to believe. So when people tell you about God and Jesus, it takes faith to understand it.

Love,
C.J.

[CeeJay]

Skasian: We are all God's creation, but not all God's Children. Check out Romans 8.

The Atheist: When a blind man who has been certified totally blind by the doctor, is prayed for and starts seeing there and then, what do you call that? Oh, and By the way, Jesus who healed people said that those who believed in him WILL Do greater works than HE did...Check out John 14.

The Atheist: Speaking in tongues will be a joke to a linguist or to you simply because you do not understand it. Its easy for people to simply say, everything in Christianity is false...and worse still, they go to great lengths to prove it (thinking that they are being enlightened), but its funny how scientists try to prove that the Creation is a myth. A famous musician said :"The earth is a masterpiece; Somebody had to paint this"...Unless you believe that you evolved from monkeys and chimps, which I absolutely do not believe. First, I am more intelligent than any Chimp.Second, say I evolved. Of all the 6000 or so years that man has spent on earth, is he not supposed to evolve to something else? It has pretty much been the same since.

Getting back to the subject, speaking in tongues is a direct communication to God. Your mind does not understand it because it is a pray that comes directly from your spirit, and neither will any one else understand it. You can only give the interpretation of it, and that gift is given by the Holy Spirit. Simple. Linguist explain the language of the earth. Have you read in the Book of revelation about people or Jesus having a name that no one understood? Even John did not understand it. There you go. That's part of it.

Curing the sick? Who said anything about curing? Curing is basically using drugs to make someone better. Healing is the more appropriate term. Haven't you read in Mark 16:15-18. where Jesus said "And these signs shall follow them that believe: ...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover?" I have been a witness to the truth in those words. You either believe it or not. But that does not change the truth: people do get healed, and miracles happen.

Red Zeppelin: Excellent Job on the dissection of the word! I enjoyed reading your thesis and reply to Limajean. permit me to add something. Accepting God is more than just about going to hell or Heaven for me, but Its about getting to know the God who made me and to enjoy his love for me, while I show my love for him in the ways I know possible. Its more than just about heaven or hell, because heaven is a given for any Child of God. Let your motivation be to get to Know God. If it is your motivation,m Heaven is the least of the bliss you'll get to enjoy.

[The Atheist]

The Atheist: When a blind man who has been certified totally blind by the doctor, is prayed for and starts seeing there and then, what do you call that?

If it happened, I'd gladly call it a miracle, but as they say in Missouri, Show me.



Stories are easy to tell.

Oh, and By the way, Jesus who healed people said that those who believed in him WILL Do greater works than HE did...Check out John 14.

Another story.

The Atheist: Speaking in tongues will be a joke to a linguist or to you simply because you do not understand it.

No, and that's the whole point, linguists do indeed understand it. This is the best part - the people doing the tongue don't realise how easily they are sprung. Linguists have studied many examples of tongue-speak and wouldn't ya know it, every time, the results show repeated gibberish in a recognisable pattern.

Too easy.

(Of course, the ones studied by linguists probably weren't "real" tongue. Probably tongue-in-cheek, or tonsil.)

[Its easy for people to simply say, everything in Christianity is false...

No, not at all, and I don't even try when it comes to things like people who have daily conversations with a god. I have no desire to pry into people's heads. But when claims of physicalism by their god come through, I like to explore the evidence.

Lots of stories.

[and worse still, they go to great lengths to prove it (thinking that they are being enlightened), but its funny how scientists try to prove that the Creation is a myth.

Now, this is palpably false.

Please name one scientist who tries to prove that creation is a myth.

There have certainly been scientists argue against creationism when some silly attempts have been made to teach it in schools, but no serious scientist is even remotely interested in "proving" that a demonstrable myth is a myth.

Dawkins doesn't bother even debating creationists for the obvious reason that it's not worth debating. The myth is that science has any interest in creation at all.

It just doesn't.

[A famous musician said :"The earth is a masterpiece; Somebody had to paint this"...Unless you believe that you evolved from monkeys and chimps, which I absolutely do not believe.

Damn right, and nor should you. Anyone who claims that humans evolved from monkeys and chimps is just out of touch with reality.

[First, I am more intelligent than any Chimp.Second, say I evolved. Of all the 6000 or so years that man has spent on earth, is he not supposed to evolve to something else? It has pretty much been the same since.

Evolution takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years - 6000 years is insufficient time frame for a mammal species to show evolutionary signs.

I won't bother mentioning glaciers, fossils, antarctica, trees, coal or any of the other millions of reasons why the idea that the earth is 6013 years old is just beyond laughable.

There are plants older than that, for goodness sake!

Getting back to the subject, speaking in tongues is a direct communication to God.

God, it must be boring to be god. Tongue is a repetition of half a dozen pieces of gibberish. Lots more boring than the Hare Krishna chant, for starters.

Your mind does not understand it because it is a pray that comes directly from your spirit, and neither will any one else understand it. You can only give the interpretation of it, and that gift is given by the Holy Spirit. Simple. Linguist explain the language of the earth. Have you read in the Book of revelation about people or Jesus having a name that no one understood? Even John did not understand it. There you go. That's part of it.

Ah, yes. the "It's in the bible, so it must be true" argument.

Curing the sick? Who said anything about curing? Curing is basically using drugs to make someone better. Healing is the more appropriate term. Haven't you read in Mark 16:15-18. where Jesus said "And these signs shall follow them that believe: ...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover?" I have been a witness to the truth in those words. You either believe it or not. But that does not change the truth: people do get healed, and miracles happen.

It's just such a damn shame that not one single person who has been healed/cured - call it what you wish - goes to their doctor afterwards for confirmation.

[skasian]

Yes, well as I frequently tell people, I walk around with both eyes open all the time.

The downside to that is that I have to look for evidence and proof and never just accept what those eyes tell me.

When something impossible happens, I'm quite sure I'll hear about it.

So you are telling me that you need proof of everything? The reason why God sends us miracles are because He wants people to have stronger faith in Him, simply, as a proof that He is with us all the time. I heavily doubt that your eyes will tell you that God exists even though miracles, impossible visual proofs occur before them. So are you telling me that you need more proofs? To what extent exactly do you need further proof to tell yourself it is time to believe in God? I fear to know your answer. Let me ask you, wouldnt this be your reaction, to tell yourself you are having metal malfunctioning if one day you have a vision of Jesus crying in front of you, asking why you reject Him.
The reality is, even with the impossible happening, atheists like you wont ever accept God. I bet that even with new evidences to proofs, it just wont ever be sufficient.

[skasian]

Rush of Blood and CJ thanks for providing extracts to confirm that some people are not God's Children.