|
||||||||
Getting to Heaven |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#176 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,474
|
Placebo isn't a miracle, it's biology. Call me when someone regrows a limb after a course of sugar pills.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#177 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Placebo isn't a miracle, it's biology. Call me when someone regrows a limb after a course of sugar pills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#178 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,789
|
Quote:
So why should we be doubtful that miracles occurred 2000 years ago,
Quote:
I very much doubt source Q even existed. You shouldn't state it as if it's existence is fact.
Quote:
A miracle in Jesus time was being healed by belief in being healed. A miracle in our time is being healed by belief the placebo is working.
Quote:
Placebo isn't a miracle, it's biology. Call me when someone regrows a limb after a course of sugar pills.
Quote:
So you don't think it's possible that people being healed by Jesus due to their belief in healing, could be biology?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#179 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,271
|
Miracles tackle the underlying illness itself, which is in mind, and all other levels including "biology". It's a mistake to think of them as magic because magic would be under the control of a personal ego.
A miracle, such as growing a limb back, without the convincing physical explanation or vague, fuzzy cop out, wouldn't be considered acceptable to our egos especially in an age of science and rationality. It would strongly conflict with the ideas we have about ourselves and undermine our existence as biological beings in a physical and separated world of objects. Our faith in science will eventually provide the "miracle" though it won't stop people losing limbs in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#180 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,692
|
Quote:
Miracles tackle the underlying illness itself, which is in mind, and all other levels including "biology". It's a mistake to think of them as magic because magic would be under the control of a personal ego.
A miracle, such as growing a limb back, without the convincing physical explanation or vague, fuzzy cop out, wouldn't be considered acceptable to our egos especially in an age of science and rationality. It would strongly conflict with the ideas we have about ourselves and undermine our existence as biological beings in a physical and separated world of objects. Our faith in science will eventually provide the "miracle" though it won't stop people losing limbs in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
#181 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
How do we know miracles existed 2000 years ago? Because it says so in a book?
Is there a source for Q? Is Q not eternal? Nobody truly knows what went on in Jesus time. How do we know that Jesus wasn't a physician? Able to diagnose people with various illnesses? There's an argument to be made for natural remedies, and if someone (Jesus) had knowledge of them, he could have treated people claiming them to be miracles, when he was actually using natural medicine. Science will see to this one day. No. Jesus was a physician coming from a lower class family? Not likely at that time. But he may have been very astute and using methods that we have yet to discover on science. |
|
|
|
|
|
#182 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
|
A miracle is when god makes the impossible, possible. When god brakes to laws of nature.
But, if you believe in god, then you must believe god created those laws. Why would any intelligent deity create a univerese whos laws inhibit the operation of that same deity??? |
|
|
|
|
|
#183 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,474
|
Quote:
So you don't think it's possible that people being healed by Jesus due to their belief in healing, could be biology?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#184 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
How do we know miracles existed 2000 years ago? Because it says so in a book?
Is there a source for Q? Is Q not eternal? Nobody truly knows what went on in Jesus time. How do we know that Jesus wasn't a physician? Able to diagnose people with various illnesses? There's an argument to be made for natural remedies, and if someone (Jesus) had knowledge of them, he could have treated people claiming them to be miracles, when he was actually using natural medicine. Science will see to this one day. No. Great post! |
|
|
|
|
|
#185 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
In the gospels, many of jesus' miracles are accompanied by his making some sort of comment, suggesting they were carefully selected particular instances, from probably a much larger number ....... We just don't know, do we ???
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
Miracles tackle the underlying illness itself, which is in mind, and all other levels including "biology". It's a mistake to think of them as magic because magic would be under the control of a personal ego.
A miracle, such as growing a limb back, without the convincing physical explanation or vague, fuzzy cop out, wouldn't be considered acceptable to our egos especially in an age of science and rationality. It would strongly conflict with the ideas we have about ourselves and undermine our existence as biological beings in a physical and separated world of objects. Our faith in science will eventually provide the "miracle" though it won't stop people losing limbs in the first place. It's like that old mantra, "I believe in something greater than us", which is apparently meant to make someone seem modest. Except it doesn't. Because it's all based on the pretence that human beings are the greatest, but oh wait, we are, but not as great as (God), this thing we (for the sake of argument - may have) constructed. All this ego talk around Science - I can't buy it. The studying and testing of what really is the greatest thing - the world around us - isn't egotistical, it's humbling. Sorry, but I find the idea of "belief" FAR more egotistical, because it doesn't require evidence, it doesn't require testing, it doesn't require scepticism, it just requires this strange, egotistical belief of "we thought it, so it is". Not to mention the HIGHLY egotistical thought that we're a creator's chosen species!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#187 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
There's also the ''jesus the magician'' theory, that he was a conjurer, similar to simon magus mentioned in Acts, but it's not really plausible .........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#188 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,970
|
Quote:
Obviously historians can't say what went on. They can only read what was written and make a judgement about its reliability. They can't make any determination about miracles.
Jesus was a physician coming from a lower class family? Not likely at that time. But he may have been very astute and using methods that we have yet to discover on science. And that fundamentally is actually my problem with religion. Not the idea that there's a "god" up there, in broad terms of some more highly developed being that created life on this planet, but in terms of belief in some badly written 2000 year old book, decades after the events, by people who had already decided what they believed (anecdote on steroids), as a basis for how we should live our lives. The fundamental idea that there might be some "creator" up there - cool, it's a possibility. The systems of belief to deify that being - not so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
#189 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,497
|
Quote:
obviously it existed, although, you yourself would probably call it ''fiction'' ..........
Sorry if that comes across as a little rude - but if you could stop stating as fact things that are clearly not fact, I wouldn't need to correct you. Quote:
The Q gospels probably did exist, as well as those known as L, earlier writings that Luke would have read. Also Mark most likely read earlier writings. This is a widely held opinion of scholars. Not just believer-scholars,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#190 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
|
Quote:
A miracle is when god makes the impossible, possible. When god brakes to laws of nature.
But, if you believe in god, then you must believe god created those laws. Why would any intelligent deity create a univerese whos laws inhibit the operation of that same deity??? |
|
|
|
|
|
#191 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Quote:
OR... it was just artistic license of the gospel writers decades later... a desperation to make what actually happened match up with prophecy, combined with liberal artistic license to make sure the idea of godly power was evident.
And that fundamentally is actually my problem with religion. Not the idea that there's a "god" up there, in broad terms of some more highly developed being that created life on this planet, but in terms of belief in some badly written 2000 year old book, decades after the events, by people who had already decided what they believed (anecdote on steroids), as a basis for how we should live our lives. The fundamental idea that there might be some "creator" up there - cool, it's a possibility. The systems of belief to deify that being - not so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
#192 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Quote:
You show a lack of knowledge both of contemporary biblical scholarship and my own posts concerning myth, fiction and religious writings.
Sorry if that comes across as a little rude - but if you could stop stating as fact things that are clearly not fact, I wouldn't need to correct you. I don't know too much about L, but I am persuaded by scholars such as Goodacre and Goulder that all we need is Markian primacy and an assumption that Luke knew Matthew. Then Q becomes an unnecessary contrivance and we can assume minimum source material for all the evangelists. |
|
|
|
|
|
#193 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
Quote:
Isn't it far more egotistical to think that simply because we BELIEVE something happened, that it actually did? Simply because we BELIEVE Jesus performed miracles, that miracles actually exist?
It's like that old mantra, "I believe in something greater than us", which is apparently meant to make someone seem modest. Except it doesn't. Because it's all based on the pretence that human beings are the greatest, but oh wait, we are, but not as great as (God), this thing we (for the sake of argument - may have) constructed. All this ego talk around Science - I can't buy it. The studying and testing of what really is the greatest thing - the world around us - isn't egotistical, it's humbling. Sorry, but I find the idea of "belief" FAR more egotistical, because it doesn't require evidence, it doesn't require testing, it doesn't require scepticism, it just requires this strange, egotistical belief of "we thought it, so it is". Not to mention the HIGHLY egotistical thought that we're a creator's chosen species!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#194 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
Placebo can't regenerate a withered hand or restore sight.
Same with eyesight. Depends what the cause is. There are cases in which people regain their eyesight. Obviously without knowing the details, it's impossible to say much about the healings. My point was that in this day, we have unexplained healing. People who've had symptoms for many years and are inexplicable healed. Those researchers who think that in future we will be able to explain miracle cures. |
|
|
|
|
|
#195 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 127
|
Quote:
Christianity teaches that you can only get to heaven if you accept that you are a sinner (ie imperfect) and trust Jesus's sacrifice on the cross to pay the price for it. Then God will accept you.
Makes me wonder - if God knew this, why did he make everyone imperfect (sinners) in the first place then? He knew they would be unable to be perfect. Is it because there would be too many in the afterlife? And if you do accept Jesus, then how good do you have to be afterwards? |
|
|
|
|
|
#196 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
I don't know too much about L, but I am persuaded by scholars such as Goodacre and Goulder that all we need is Markian primacy and an assumption that Luke knew Matthew. Then Q becomes an unnecessary contrivance and we can assume minimum source material for all the evangelists. He says that nothing could be further from the truth. Huge portions of their Gospels are independent of Mark. Mark and Luke had quite different portrayals of the crucified Jesus. The Gospel of John is independent of the others, the maverick Gospel. There is no reason to think Luke was lying when referring to earlier writings he read. There are other reasons for thinking there was a Q. And that it was made up of the sayings of Jesus, primarily. Goodacre and Ehrman are apparently friends though, and write positively about each other even where they disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
#197 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
well, things like reanimating dead dudes, and curing leprosy, are not really ''power of autosuggestion mind over matter'', though it wd be nice to hav much more detail. Anyway, bolly, happy new year. At one point i thought you'd left ds, never to return, so happy to see u haven't .......
![]() I don't know what the miracles were. I'm sure I've mentioned studies in which it can be shown that positive thoughts of a spouse can be experienced by a partner. So who knows. The mind is likely much more powerful than we assume. Another thing is, some conditions can be neurological. For example, a leper's hands are desensitized to pain, and if they can be re-sensitized, they would feel those organs again. So maybe possible that a 'healing' could cause neurological changes in a person. |
|
|
|
|
|
#198 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
There's also the ''jesus the magician'' theory, that he was a conjurer, similar to simon magus mentioned in Acts, but it's not really plausible .........
Yet that wasn't his personality throughout the gospels. His personality comes across as genuine and humble (does not credit himself). He seemed very sincere about the coming of the kingdom. Whether right or not about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#199 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,202
|
Quote:
OR... it was just artistic license of the gospel writers decades later... a desperation to make what actually happened match up with prophecy, combined with liberal artistic license to make sure the idea of godly power was evident.
And that fundamentally is actually my problem with religion. Not the idea that there's a "god" up there, in broad terms of some more highly developed being that created life on this planet, but in terms of belief in some badly written 2000 year old book, decades after the events, by people who had already decided what they believed (anecdote on steroids), as a basis for how we should live our lives. The fundamental idea that there might be some "creator" up there - cool, it's a possibility. The systems of belief to deify that being - not so much. It's not clear that Jesus thought he was the son of God. In some quotes he shows God as superior. He calls himself the son of Man. I don't think the NT is a bad book just because we can't be certain of events in early history. There is the same problem of writing about any event. Let's say photos of 9/11 were destroyed, and all the journalism about it. A historian would set out to re-construct 9/11 based on people who knew eyewitnesses. It wouldn't be perfect, no. But we would have some reasonable version of 9/11. |
|
|
|
|
|
#200 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,271
|
Quote:
Isn't it far more egotistical to think that simply because we BELIEVE something happened, that it actually did? Simply because we BELIEVE Jesus performed miracles, that miracles actually exist?
It's like that old mantra, "I believe in something greater than us", which is apparently meant to make someone seem modest. Except it doesn't. Because it's all based on the pretence that human beings are the greatest, but oh wait, we are, but not as great as (God), this thing we (for the sake of argument - may have) constructed. All this ego talk around Science - I can't buy it. The studying and testing of what really is the greatest thing - the world around us - isn't egotistical, it's humbling. Sorry, but I find the idea of "belief" FAR more egotistical, because it doesn't require evidence, it doesn't require testing, it doesn't require scepticism, it just requires this strange, egotistical belief of "we thought it, so it is". Not to mention the HIGHLY egotistical thought that we're a creator's chosen species!! Both grandiosity and being humble have the same source which is the human ego. By being more special or less special we separate ourselves out from each other and God. Specialness applied to anyone or anything is a quality of ego mind and egoistic thinking. Clearly, we can't live as humans without ego since to be human is to have an ego, but it can be countered in thought and action. Work on the ego and its eventual demise is not going to be a great concern to anyone with a spiritual intent and kind of goes with the territory. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:54.




