God still with me 2008

Subject: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:02 PM

Jesus said " I will never leave you or forsake you." God is ever faithful to His Word. Some folks who would be hard pressed to prove their own existence philosophically, using the rules of logic, seem to me, Hell-bent on disproving God's existence. I have all the proof I need. He utterly changed my life in 1967. Rather He GAVE me life in 1967! True to His promise He gave me His Holy Spirit Who lives in my soul, at my request I might add. I can say with the Apostle Paul "For I know in Whom I have believed and I am persuaded the He is able to keep that (i.e. my soul) which I have committed unto Him against that day ( of judgement)." II Timothy 1:12 Parentheticals mine.

God offers no proof which must pass the judgement of Man. God is not judged of Man. If that were so only people of high intellect would be saved. God makes salvation available to all so that even a child or an adult of limited understanding can come to Him. All that it takes is faith and the proof is by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit. If that offends you or your sense of, what? rationality? Then so be it. I didn't make up the rules!

Mary Shelly grappled with this assault on human reason in her classic novel "Frankenstein" in which the imperfect creation confronts his imperfect creator. Same theme in the classic movie "Blade Runner" which again was based upon Philip K. Dick's short story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (Nice hidden redundancy in that title). But the Scripture asks the question "...O Man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed (it), 'Why hast thou made me thus?'" Romans 9:20. God, being God, is unassailable.

We all have opinions. Some are just that, opinions, some considered, some otherwise and that is our right as free human beings. Even the not-so-free have opinions even though they are suppressed. I have respect for God's opinion as expressed in His Scripture, the Holy Bible. That's my right. You may disagree with me and you may disagree with the Scriptures, in whole or in part. That too, is your right. You have the right to be wrong, as do I. Jesus said "For the Son of man ( i.e. Jesus) is come to save that which was lost." If you are not lost, well, don't worry about it.

That last sounds kind of confrontive but it's not. I was making a statement I felt would forestall endless debate which is currently going on in a couple of other threads. This is a statement of belief. Of course, comment if you like. And know that Jesus is much more loving and kind than I am, though I AM trying to be. He invites all to come to Him and gives His assurance that He will reject no one who does come to Him.

Subject: RE: God still with ne 2008
From: Slag
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:04 PM

Oops! Sorry guys! Goes below the line, if you would please.

Subject: RE: God still with ne 2008
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:05 PM

God will put it there

Barry

Subject: RE: God still with ne 2008
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:10 PM

Yup - you can expect a lot of trash talk from the usual suspects.

Subject: RE: God still with ne 2008
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 05:29 PM

The worst habit of the human ego is that of constantly, obsessively trying to make everyone else in the world adopt its own favorite beliefs, ideas, and prejudices...(whatever those may be)

Subject: RE: God still with ne 2008
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 06:04 PM

By the fruits of the Spirit shall followers of Jesus Christ be known. Like you Slag, I was very up-front with my Faith when I first joined the 'Cat' but found that being confrontationally bold only drew out the flamers and trolls who did not share my faith. I come here now mainly for information and mostly on the music threads but I do come below the line for a bit of lighthearted banter or to make a joke or two. My life too was changed utterly by coming to know the Lord but I have learned that being a living example to people is preferable to trying to win them with strong words.
May God truly Bless you with wisdom and understanding friend.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 06:15 PM

There's really nothing to argue with or debate here. Slag has simply stated his belief. He is not debating 'proof'...just accepting the 'word' as he sees it.

I don't see why he thought it necessary to proclaim it in this way, but everything *I* have had to say, I have said elsewhere.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Arkie
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 06:27 PM

Good post Slag. You testify to what you know and feel. Jesus came to heal that which is broken and to help us be the best we can be in every aspect of our lives. Following Jesus is living by the promises, example and inspiration. One think it does not do is make moral principles into laws.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 06:39 PM

Good for you, an imaginary friend.

Religious faith is a form of mental illness.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 06:41 PM

So is faith in the political party of your choice. ;-)

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM

no, michaelr....that's NOT what it is. And that sort of provocation is counter-productive.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 08:58 PM

Michaelr, the same has been said about "liberalism" but then I question the guy's balance who wrote that book.

Yes, Jesus is my friend but He is so much more than I could have ever imagined!

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:57 PM

Provocation? Just stating an opinion.

I could be wrong. My problem with the faithful is that they can't.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:28 PM

We don't really need any of this right now. It's been beaten to death over the last two months. Everyone, please, just let it go.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:53 AM

michaelr..until you 'experience' something for yourself perhaps you may not believe in anything....... Like slag, I have experienced having Jesus Christ in my life in many forms...some of which ..if I told you you would probably not believe anyway....seek the truth for yourself if you have the time...who knows..you might find something bigger than you.
Best wishes, Mike.
PS...some of my experience is on view on my website:-
My website..a Christian one...your choice!

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:55 AM

Almost forgot....take a particular look at 'Mikes Testimony' and 'Mikes Healing'
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 03:28 AM

I am about as interested in your religious experiences as I am in the details of WYZ; wardrobe management with its myriad, highly complex problems and details. The cleverness of it all.

I don't mind what you believe in or do not. But it is more than a little off-putting to have you pouring out your particular cult's views in these threads. Views which are, by their nature, espousing a one-sided cultural bias.

In case you've never studied the phenomena, ALL cults provide their followers with "so much more than I ever imagined". This interesting fact tells me that none of them are the actual source of the uplift being reported, but it comes, as even Jesus said, from within themselves.

But even if your exultations were not swept up in the grip of a mis-identified source, it strikes me as most unseemly to go on about it in this self-congratulatory way.

I really do wish you the best of luck with these matters, but I dearly wish you would not hang it out for public view, because it smacks of show-offery, which is very much at odds with the received word of JC himself, you may recall. It is immodest and unbecoming and in poor taste.

A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 04:46 AM

If that be the case, Amos, then it seems to me "off-putting, to say the least, to have massive threads asserting that there is no God, not even Jesus. That's OK? Just so long as it agrees with your opinion? Show-Off?-ery? I did NOTHING to be saved except accepting the extended hand. That's why "salvation" is the term used since the time of Christ and before. He did the saving and it is NOT an exclusive club.

More over I said nothing about a Christian culture. There are many different cultures which claim Christ as their inspiration. Some even appeal to me but that is not what my post was about.

If, under the good graces of Mudcat, someone has the right to assert that there is no God, not even Jesus, a sense of fair play, free speech should be obvious to you that I have the same measured right to assert otherwise and give a reason or two, don't you think? Don't you think?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 04:55 AM

The problem with ones personal 'Christian' experience is that it does not offer definitive proof to the sceptic. For instance Amos...if you read 'Mikes Healing' on my website you would suggest either I was lieing or there was an incredible coincidence...it could not be God...it would have to be either some ordinary happening or something not quite right with me or I was misled......well maybe I am alright and maybe my experience of a miracle was real.....everyone has a choice of what they believe...

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:17 AM

As a totally non-religious person, I think this is a great title for a thread--if nothing else it begins to counter the "Still No Gods" etc. threads we've been honored with for the past umpty-ump weeks. Here's hoping this one will also have hundreds of entries--just to slightly begin to address the imbalance.

And since there's no way anybody will ever convince anybody else on this topic, it all depends, as usual, on how much time people have to waste. Just as the others did.

So please have at it.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:34 AM

I understand and admire the sentiment, Ron--my concern, and the reason that I "wasted" a lot of time and energy on the other(and on similar) threads, is simply that I am concerned that these prolonged, and vituperative battles will start to define what Mudcat is--though maybe it is too late for that--

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:38 AM

..........as Ringo Starr once sang 'Back off, Boogaloo!'

Says it all really?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:06 AM

Depending on what is meant by "Boogaloo"--

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:15 AM

Can you point to a single datum, as in a verifiable and definable phenomenon, that supports your beliefs? No... which is why you call it Faith. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that it is irrational, and counter to demonstrable reality.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:38 AM

Mrrzy..take a look at 'Mikes Healing' as suggested above (follow the link to my website) What happened there really happened....as have many other things. The guy who prayed for healing for me went on to become part of a World Ministry for healing...but he doesn't do the healing..he just asks God for it. Perhaps you could explain to me why prayer for instant healing works...I know it does...not only for my healing but as witness to others, as well as some I have prayed for in other people. As I said before.....most people are sceptical so you are in a majority....doesn't necessarily mean you are right.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 09:58 AM

Mrzzy is here, so the battle can begin. By the way, Mrz--do you know about this? Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:08 AM

Perhaps it was not intended, but the whole blurb smacks of smugness and conceit.

I did not start the "No Gods" thread, and I think the person who did was equally in bad taste. In that thread, the counter-viewpoints were thoroughly trotted out and the debate went on for some time.

If all you are trying to do is balance the presence of the title of a thread you find offensive, this is not the most efficient way to do it.

I have various opinions about the nature of your religious experiences, in particular and in general, but it is not meet and civil to stick them in an argy-bargy thread, and to what end? Who am I to define another's experience?

But, as I said, IMHO the whole thing is in poor taste, justifications or no.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:18 AM

It boils down to there is a very small but vocal minority that just doesn't want to see anything of a spiritual basis here if it involves a higher power. Hundreds of posts about nonthism is perfectly acceptable - but to have some balance and talk about God? Ewwww - no way. Freedom of speech - only if we agree with your views.

But who am I to define another's experience?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:33 AM

I am completely with you on this, Amos--two wrongs don't make a right--they make a fight.
And that's what we've got here. Nothing more or less than a common, ordinary, street brawl.

Bottom line is, you've all got chips on your shoulder, and you're all just daring the other guy to knock it off. When they won't you escalate the level of provocation--to be blunt, you're not being good Christians, not being good Scientists, you are being assholes.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:58 AM

I took this to be a mostly Christian thread, so didn't come look at it until now, and that was as a joe clone to check for nasties. I am surprised it is not worse.

As just a Mudcatter, I understand the desire for such a thread, but not the need, no more than I did the no god ones, which I did not read nor post to. They both seem like someone knocking on my front door trying to convince me of whatever.

Oh, and it is too late for Mudcat. The BS section isn't much fun any more and the nastiness has carried over to the music section; just check out any thread about specific artists and you will find plenty.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:12 AM

It's not like we have a lot of "god" threads here at all. So when two threads go on for about 1000 posts about the nonexistence of a higher power it shouldn't be suprising that another viewpoint is offered. And from what I read in the original post there was no attempt to convert anyone to any point of view. Just someone saying "This is what I believe". So what's the harm of offering a viewpoint?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:18 AM

Have you thought about exorcism?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:21 AM

SLag,

Don't get me wrong. I am delighted you had such wonderful experiences at a high, mystic level.

But in rattling them off, sprinkled with Authoritative Capital LEtters in Command Words (like god, holy, scripture) you are walking right into the biggest error of testifying. Either you are just preaching to the choir, or you are not really trying very hard to get understood by those who aren't in the choir, because you are waving red flags in every sentence.

Why? Because you are proclaiming and invoking AUhtority which others do not recognize, and freighting your language in ways that implies that authority is, or should be, irrefutable.

This, of course, pushes the buttons of anyone who values their independence of mind. You sound like the kind of person who would want to send each of us who are more skeptical to the Pricipal's Office for disciplining.

I would suggest an alternative approach. Try embodying the enlightenment you have experienced into your acts, and not your words. Use ordinary languiage to show kindness, compassion, and inspiration, instead of citing institutionalized, authoritarian categorical power-buttons at people. It would, oddly enough, not only be more effective communication, it would be far more Christian in the deepest and best sense of the word.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:26 AM

The thread was titled "God Still with me 2008" NOT ""Free tickets to Pete Seegar's next concert". It was plainly marked - so anyone offended by the thread came here with the intention of being offended. Anyone who doesn't want to hear about the topic has the choice of NOT opening the thread. What could be easier?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:48 AM

Ya know, Wes, you're right. I shoulda never opened the thread, but I am an elephant of insatiable curiousity. I apologize for jumping in and handing out opinions.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

Prayer has actually been demonstrated NOT to work. THe most recent study involved patients who were prayed for and didn't know it, patients who were prayed for and knew it, and patients who were not prayed for. The only difference was that the ones who knew they were being prayed for got worse. There was no advantage of the prayed-for over the not-prayed-for.

Some people may well get better from prayer - the same reason people get better from good thoughts, or the placebo effect. The human mind can do wonders - but there is no need for any god hypotheses.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 11:54 AM

That's OK. I've learned not to open any of the threads about Swedish fiddle music. Or offer opinions about it either.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:09 PM

Mebbe thet weren't preying hard enough or lied about what they really prayed for

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 12:29 PM

Mrrzy, did you not read: The thread was titled "God Still with me 2008" NOT ""Free tickets to Pete Seegar's next concert". It was plainly marked - so anyone offended by the thread came here with the intention of being offended. Anyone who doesn't want to hear about the topic has the choice of NOT opening the thread. What could be easier?

Perhaps you could show some respect and go post elsewhere?

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:39 PM

? I am not being disrespectful. I am, as is everybody else, invited to post here, and I have. I was asked a question, and I answered it, without meanness, pettiness, or insult. I am surprised at you.

And, what is that about Pete Seeger? I must be missing something.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 02:44 PM

There are other studies, documented in books by Larry Dossey, for example, where the reverse is true, Mrrz. Obviously, there are ambiguous or only partially understood vectors in play.

The placebo effect, sometimes used as a shorthand dismissal of sudden remediation of some apparently physical condition, is one of the most under-estimated bits of phenomena outt here. While it is simple and easy, and maybe accurate, to say "it's the mind", that's a bit like saying that gravity and EMF are "the ether". It offers no explanation which can open the door to understanding, just providing an obfuscatory box to stick things in to defer further insight.

To be able to understand what the mind actually IS, and how it can engage whole physical systems in extreme measures of disruption OR palliation, would be a major piece of work. As to whether it would open the door to unknown elements such as the cognitive and the spiritual, there is no saying at this point. No sense getting all superstitious, but neither should we embrace willfully ignorant conculsions.

A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:13 PM

Good grief. Such animosity. Amos, the caps I only intend as an honorific to my deity, er, uh, Deity! There's some historic tradition for that. Honest, I was only seeking to balance out assertions to the contrary as noted by the presence of those other threads. I found THOSE assertions to be provocative. I might have even found them offensive but the offense is not to me.

As noted above, reality is, philosophically and logically a difficult thing to prove even though we all, to some degree ( a little humor there), participate in it. We pretty much take our world as given, on faith. We believe it because in our experience, it works. My faith in Christ worked great changes for me. More over it is His claim in the book which portrays Him, that He will do the same for anyone who truly turns to Him. Not my claim. His claim. I just happen to believe it.

As for the direction of the 'Cat, well, we are all people and free people have the right or perhaps even the duty to differ on things. That's how you can tell if you are still free. In a society that has only one voice you may believe that you are entirely free, IF you happen to agree with that voice. Everything is hunky dory! But if you should happen to voice an idea that runs counter to the bias, What happens? Is that idea tolerated? Is the person shouted down? Exiled? Eliminated?   Brr. While I have disagreed, and at times, vociferously disagreed with some assertions I have always tolerated the same. I have sought points of common ground and have related to mindsets outside of my own experiences. I have a great appreciation for Zen and Buddhism in general. Hinduism, Jainism have a high intellectual capacity as some aspects offer much wisdom. I have studied many of the religions of the world as a means to understanding my own. I have been a student of philosophy, physics, life sciences, astronomy, I struggle with calculus but really appreciate its abilities to define the reality of the physical world. A there are many more directions I have taken in order to understand my life and my world. I have sought to understand, to appreciate the thing level.

And too, I have sought to understand the psyche, the conscious mind/brain connection. What is consciousness??? You know it exists. I presume you probably all have one (if "one" is the right word!) and yet I take that on faith also, as you can't weigh it or measure it in a physical way. And yet most all of us spend 99% of our waking hours dealing with matters and constructs of the mind and personalities. What is the soul? Some would say that it doesn't exist or that it is just a biochemical manifestation. Prove it or prove it not. It is entirely subjective. But what is the object? What is the subject? It questions existence itself which is a really cool thing to contemplate. To me it is amazing how we fill a physical niche in the living world and yet the world cannot contain the mind or the heart of Man ( uh, sorry about the cap and the gender thing there, Amos!).

I won't write a book here and that should be kept in mind by all posters to not get too serious about anything that appears here below the line. It is a bull session. Period. There is no need for anger or provocation to anger. My take is that anything goes but don't go overboard. As for keeping the integrity of above-the-line entries, I agree, reign those in and keep them on topic. A few asides and anecdotes hurt nothing but if that is all that the thread becomes, then move it or file it.

As a little hint, check out the informal fallacies of logic. To attack the person proves nothing.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:35 PM

Mrrzy: "Nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that it is irrational"

Having faith is not irrational, Mrrz. Irrational behaviour is, roughly speaking, going against what you know in spite of knowing it. For you right now, for example, that might mean believing in God, since it seems to fly in the face of what you know empirically and based in science. For me, it would mean not beleiving in God, as it would fly in the face of my own experience.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 06:53 PM

For those of you interested in some 'proof' more concrete than just the say-so of belivers, I came across these interesting examples recently. They relate to the Divine Mercy, a devotion by Catholics to the divine mercy of God.

The first concerns a guy called Ugo Festa who was born in Vicenza, Italy in 1951. He got multiple sclerosis early on. By age 39 he had sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, epilepsy. By 1990 his spine was distorted and he was getting daily seizures. All kinds of doctors and consultants looked at him and decided in the end there was nothing they could do for him. He decided the onlything left was prayer.

He went to Rome in 1990 and was invited to go with a group to a Divine Mercy centre, but refused. The group went without him but left him with a picture of the Divine Mercy (it shows a depiction of Jesus with two streams of light coming from His heart and side). At St.Peter's he met with the Pope (John Paul II) and asked him to bless the picture. He told the Pope he felt very despondent. The Pope replied 'how can you feel despondent with the Divine Mercy in your arms?"

Ugo decided to go to the Divine Mercy centre after all. A few days later he was praying at the centre when he suddenly noticed the arms of Jesus in the picture outstretched towards him and a tremendous warmth flowing into him. He found himself standing on his feet and loudly praising God. He heard Jesus say 'rise up and walk'. He began to walk. At that moment his ailments were cured (remember what they were? He was at this time, wheelchair bound). He was more physically perfect than he'd ever been in his life before. In August 1990 Ugo returned to the Vatican and met with the Pope again, telling (this time standing on his feet) what had happened to him. He now devotes his life to spreading the message of the Divine Mercy.

Then there was Maureen Digan who at age 15 got a slow progressive disease caleld Lymphedmia. This disease does not respond to medictaion and does not go into remission. Over 10 years she had 50 operations and stays in hospital of up to a year at a time in length. Friends asked her to put her trust in God, but unsurprisingly she wouldn't asking why God had let her suffer like that. She lost her faith completely. Her husband eventually persuaded her to visit the tomb of the nun in Poland who had first had the revelations about the Divine Mercy (Sister Faustina). Thus in 1981 Maureen went to confession for the first time since she'd been a young girl. At the nun's tomb she said to herself 'ok, Faustina, I came a long way now do something". She heard (in her heart) the nun reply 'if you ask for my help I will give it to you". Suddenly she felt as if she was having a nervous breakdown - all the pian seemed to drain out of her body and her swollen leg which was due to be amputated shortly went back to its normal size. She was examined by five independent doctors who came to the conclsuion she was healed completely and had medical explanation for the sudden healing of this incurable disease.

There is a site www.divinemercy.com but it's currently under construction. If interested in knowing more, get the Divine Mercy booklet ISBN 1872276 15 6

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:14 PM

I think it would be stretching the case too far to ascribe either of the above two cases to placebo effect. I can understand it helping someone slowly recover from a more minor ailment, but we're talking about a whole rapid PHSYICAL change here, the suddne and dramatic reversal of years of physically distortion

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 07:55 PM

Amos "I would suggest an alternative approach. Try embodying the enlightenment you have experienced into your acts, and not your words. Use ordinary languiage to show kindness, compassion, and inspiration, instead of citing institutionalized, authoritarian categorical power-buttons at people. It would, oddly enough, not only be more effective communication, it would be far more Christian in the deepest and best sense of the word"

I understand what you're saying..... I agree a good Christian should show their faith by acts, but how is someone supposed to demonstrate their faith by ACTS on an internet forum like Mudcat?

Now, language, of course that's another matter. But I think Slag was using ordinary words, and just telling it as he sees it and understands it. At least the words he was using were ordinary enough for other believers. I know non-believers might have a problem with words like 'God' and 'bible' and so on. But the organised churches have already shown the futility of diluting God's word to attract bigger congregations - using hip hop terms etc, which ends up with no-one taking them seriously anyway.

And there are some neighbourhoods in the city where I live where ANY of the words over one syllable we used on this forum to discuss philosophy science and religion would gaurantee us a good beating. So we can't keep everyone happy all the time!

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:04 PM

Nickhere: "She was examined by five independent doctors who came to the conclsuion she was healed completely and had medical explanation for the sudden healing of this incurable disease"

Obviously that sentence should have read "...no medical explanation for..."

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:29 PM

*Sigh* I knew better!

Mrzzy...your post denigrated the beliefs of other, perhaps not in a mean way, but in a done-deal kind of way...it's a tit-for-tat thing I see on the Mudcat so much these days. If you don't agree with them, why muck up a thread they obviously wanted to have to themselves? Oops, I forgot, it's the Mudcat Way...and has been for years, now. Get shot down often enough and ya stop starting threads on anything metaphysical, anything wiccan, anything about purple people eaters, you name it, you will get contention. If that is NOT what you meant, my apologies, but that's the way it reads.

katgettingouthertenfootpole

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 08:42 PM

"And, what is that about Pete Seeger? I must be missing something."


                        Pete Seeger was one of those people who was always really rational about religion.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 08 - 10:30 PM

Hey guys, if you wish to p[lace your faith in the person of Christ and the representation of God he represents, more power to you, and I wish you great delight in it.

It's none of my business which school of metaphysics you subscribe to, or which paper you read, either.

I respectfully withdraw from the conversation.

A