Replies

Since the last post in which you replied to MHGinTN was inspired by her response to a post I made, but not directed at anything I said, I will not take offense at these comments:

"What could be more self-righteous and egotistic then to pretend to be a (self-appointed) spokesperson for God himself?"

"And who decides what is a "genuine" question? The self-appointed, self-rigthoeus, God's press secretary?"

I would, however, like to call attention to the fact that you have yet to respond or comment regarding the two other observations I made.

First, in reference to your question about trusting in faith healing to cast out demons or using antibiotics to kill bacteria in pneumonia, I pointed out that you made the assumption that these two options were mutually exclusive.

I see absolutely no contradiction in praying for healing while at the same time using the intellect given to us by God to apply our learning to the situation. If the illness was cured, why would you care which method effected the cure?

Second, this last morning, I responded to your post which said:

"If we left everything to religion, we would still be living in the 1st century chasing "demons" out of lepers."

My response was - "With that statement you have demonstrated a far more narrow view of what religious people do and think than we (religious people) ever supposed of the scientific community.

People who truly live their faith are on a never ending quest to uncover the wonderful way God has formed the universe."

I realize that these two comments were not specific questions, but rather observations. I will not hold you to qui tacet consentire videtur but I would ask you to consider the possibility that your line of argument is logically flawed by the most elementary of fallacies, the converse fallacy of accident, commonly known as the "some=all" fallacy.

Because some creationists are also Biblical literalists does not mean that all are.

Because some healers use faith and casting out of demons exclusively does not mean that all do.

Because religion has been used in some instances to suppress knowledge, does not mean that suppression is religion's central tenent, or even a common one.

What I truly find astounding is that someone such as yourself, who (I infer through your comments) believes in demonstrable causality and the verifiability of conclusions could ascribe to an evolutionary doctrine which is at best quite thin on evidence, and at worst, an obvious attempt to justify human hubris on a grand scale.

I pointed out that you made the assumption that these two options were mutually exclusive.

I didn't reply to that specific comment because (1) I am under no obligation to reply to every comment and (2) because they are mutually medicine and prayer are exclusive.

Prayer may make people feel good and hopeful that God, in his mercy, will intervene in someone's illness. Sometimes, that's all that'poor "standard of care" because it is unreliable and unpredictable.

I see absolutely no contradiction in praying for healing...

What happened to "Thy will be done?" Some here think it's too much of me to ask for proof, yet it's not too much to expect God to change his mind because they feel he should?

Besides, why would Christians be afraid of dying? Why would they want to live here, in this sinful world, when they could be with God? Why not just have faith that God will do the right and accept his will without nagging him for favors?

People who truly live their faith are on a never ending quest to uncover the wonderful way God has formed the universe."

I responded to that comment in #679

"Why would religious people strive to 'uncover' anything? isn't the Bible enough? Besides, the NT states that all you have to ask and it will be revealed. You don't need to research, dig and uncover. Are all the answers to be found in the Bible? Isn't what's in the Bible exactly and as much as God wanted us to know? The Bible only commissions that believers preach the Gospel and baptize."

I will not hold you to qui tacet consentire videtur

That's very kind of you, especially since I don't have time or desire to respond to everyone's comments. I try my best to answer everyone's direct questions, however. So, don't mistake my silence with agreement.

I would ask you to consider the possibility that your line of argument is logically flawed by the most elementary of fallacies, the converse fallacy of accident, commonly known as the "some=all" fallacy.

Could you provide specific examples where I equate some with all? I try to avoid sweeping generalizations.

What I truly find astounding is that someone such as yourself, who (I infer through your comments) ... could ascribe to an evolutionary doctrine which is at best quite thin on evidence

First, there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary doctrine. Second, there is very little doubt that species evolve.