If God appeared to you today, how would you that that this was the almighty God and not an impostor? Bear in mind that the Devil (or Satan) also has many of the abilities of God and can pass himself off as God by mimicking God's properties.

What questions would you ask this Being, answers of which will allow you to assess whether he is an impostor or the real God?

Atheists:

My biggest problem with the Christianity was  that they  have a god who creates  an imperfect creation  and then expects that creation to  live up to his standards. Failure to live up to his standards will result in eternal damnation ! Truth be told there isn't one  redeeming feature in Christianity.

Hello,

Can you tell us a bit more about your conversion from supernaturalism and irrationality.

The real fervent believer prays before (al)most activities in their lives:

Going to bed
Eating
Playing sports
Taking exams
Attending meetings
Driving or going on a journey


But I have never meet a Christian who admits to praying before SEX with their partners. I wonder what the words of such prayers would be?

Deep Sight:

As you posit that the first microscopic life form must have arisen from some pre-biotic soup, can you please tie that in with Loius Pastuer's experiments which showed that life can only come from pre-existing life?

You atheists make the religious fanatics look brilliant, cos you never advance any thoughts of your own, you ONLY seek to discredit the thoughts of others.

That's not very original.

This is utter nonsense. When did this ever become a competition for originality?

mazaje:

I am employed. . .I have a degree in geology and mining back in Nigeria came to Europe and had another degree in software engineering and information management. . .I also Have an MBA in engineering management. . . .What about you?. . . .  

Ah, not too dissimilar a background then.  I now work in software and IT infrastructure, having left civil enigeering and maths about 10 years ago.  I like to meet people who are into burning that intellectual fire in them, and there is no better place for sharpening once teeth than getting engaged in debates like we do here at NL.

Do you read popular science books?  If you don't, I would like to urge to to take a look into these genre of books.  There are plenty good authors out there now - from natural science, to astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, etc.

There is good book in geology called SnowBall Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Earth-Maverick-Scientist-Catastrophe/dp/1400051258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253553103&sr=8-1),  which am sure you would fine entrancing.

mazaje:

@ huxley

What was your major in university?. . . .

Are you currently at university or are you in employment? What is you line of study/work?

mazaje:

@ huxley

What was your major in university?. . . .

Civil Engineering & Mathematical Analysis/Modelling at Manchester University.  I started a diploma course in Astronomy/Cosmology last year at Manchester Univ, but have had to shelf it due to family and work engagements?  I have still got the books which I read from time to time.

tpia.:

since you people are stuck in 11th century thinking, or whatever premedieval/premordial beliefs you subscribe to- I'm pointing out the fact that light itself had a beginning, and it didnt start with the sun. Genesis clearly shows this.

If you cant see it, too bad.

Huxley I dont have your time today. Just post whatever you feel like posting.

I just had to laugh out loud on this one - But I wonder, Why don't you have my time?  Is it something (scientific and technical) I could have said?


By the way, I don't think anyone (I mean the scientific rationalist) is saying that light solely originates from the sun.  Current scientific thinking has light created thousand or millions of years (my memory fails me here as to the exact estimate) after the Big Bang.   And there were many billions of stars formed before our own star, the sun.  Today, the earth is bathed by the light of billions of stars, but these stars have no consequence on the day/night concept of the earth.

So the concept of day/night only makes sense in the following combination of events:

1)  A rotating planet
2)  A source of light
3)  The source and the planet being gravitationally bound together.

tpia.:


i hope you're aware there are plants which grow in the absence of sunlight?

Many of you atheists seem to trot out old outdated arguments withuot bothering to look at new discoveries being churned out by the day.

There's plant and animal life in deep sea vents which grow without oxygen or light.


here's the big bang theory model (an artist's impression):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Universe_expansion2.png



and do you see the lights before the individual galaxies and suns?

does it negate Gen 1? Not in my opinion.

OK, you think the Genesis cosmology is in accord with modern day cosmology?  Let's examine the Genesis narrative:

In Genesis, the Sun was not  created until the 4 day; if this is true then you have to explain the following:

1)   The concept of day/night does NOT make sense except in the light (pun intended) of a source of light which periodically bathes the earth.  If there was no Sun, our source of light, then there would never have been a day nor a night.  So talking of day/night makes no sense in the absense of the sun.

2)   The Sun is not only the source of light, it is also the centre of attraction of all planets in the solar system.  If god created the earth before the sun, this would suggest that the earth was never in an orbit but must have been travelling in a non-orbitary trajectory, or was stationary.  As far as I know, there is no modern cosmological theory that accounts for stationary planets, or for planets forming prior to their stars.  So Genesis violates the most basic of modern cosmology.

For you to attempt to reconcile Genesis with modern cosmology/astronomy without realising these issues is either gross ignorance on your part, or willful ignorance, or sheer dishonesty.

International scene
The Camerounian President needs prayer for good health and against political crisis. A great opposition is coming against him. The Togolese President will be betrayed by his closest aides. His authority in Togo will be challenged in the coming election. Former Ghanaian president, Jerry Rawlings, and the incumbent need prayers for good health. Rwanda will experience a new dawn.

Oh ! How prescient! This opposition has been there since the early 90s. Great vision by the man of dog.

[size=14pt]Jeremiah 19:[/size]

7 " 'In this place I will ruin [a] the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who seek their lives, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. 8 I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. [size=14pt]9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.'
[/size]

Jeremiah 19:

7 " 'In this place I will ruin [a] the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who seek their lives, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. 8 I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. [size=14pt]9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.'[/size]


Who is making people eat the flesh of their Children?

noetic2:

was that refering to humans? can u give us ONE example of a human "sacrificed" in the bible?

Judges 11 (New International Version)

Judges 11

1 Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior. His father was Gilead; his mother was a prostitute. 2 Gilead's wife also bore him sons, and when they were grown up, they drove Jephthah away. "You are not going to get any inheritance in our family," they said, "because you are the son of another woman." 3 So Jephthah fled from his brothers and settled in the land of Tob, where a group of adventurers gathered around him and followed him.

4 Some time later, when the Ammonites made war on Israel, 5 the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob. 6 "Come," they said, "be our commander, so we can fight the Ammonites."

7 Jephthah said to them, "Didn't you hate me and drive me from my father's house? Why do you come to me now, when you're in trouble?"

8 The elders of Gilead said to him, "Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be our head over all who live in Gilead."

9 Jephthah answered, "Suppose you take me back to fight the Ammonites and the LORD gives them to me—will I really be your head?"

10 The elders of Gilead replied, "The LORD is our witness; we will certainly do as you say." 11 So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them. And he repeated all his words before the LORD in Mizpah.

12 Then Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king with the question: "What do you have against us that you have attacked our country?"

13 The king of the Ammonites answered Jephthah's messengers, "When Israel came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably."

14 Jephthah sent back messengers to the Ammonite king, 15 saying:
       "This is what Jephthah says: Israel did not take the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites. 16 But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh. 17 Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, 'Give us permission to go through your country,' but the king of Edom would not listen. They sent also to the king of Moab, and he refused. So Israel stayed at Kadesh.

18 "Next they traveled through the desert, skirted the lands of Edom and Moab, passed along the eastern side of the country of Moab, and camped on the other side of the Arnon. They did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was its border.

19 "Then Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon, and said to him, 'Let us pass through your country to our own place.' 20 Sihon, however, did not trust Israel  to pass through his territory. He mustered all his men and encamped at Jahaz and fought with Israel.

21 "Then the LORD, the God of Israel, gave Sihon and all his men into Israel's hands, and they defeated them. Israel took over all the land of the Amorites who lived in that country, 22 capturing all of it from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the desert to the Jordan.

23 "Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over? 24 Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the LORD our God has given us, we will possess. 25 Are you better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel with Israel or fight with them? 26 For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn't you retake them during that time? 27 I have not wronged you, but you are doing me wrong by waging war against me. Let the LORD, the Judge, decide the dispute this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites."

28 The king of Ammon, however, paid no attention to the message Jephthah sent him.

29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."

[size=14pt]38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.[/size]
      From this comes the Israelite custom 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

Take a look at these to see where I am coming from!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0WTtevBcQE&feature=sub



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Xv3a70fGw&feature=sub

Deep Sight:

Huxley; your posts indicate that you seem not be be contesting the existence of God, but his nature, yes?

Absolutely YES. His nature, if logical and consistent, would render his existence more likely. Similarly, if illogical, internally inconsistent and incoherent would make his existence unlikely.

Deep Sight:

Mazaje please my memory is failing me, can you be so kind as to assist to point out where in the Bible God requests human sacrifices.

[size=14pt]Leviticus 27:[/size]

26Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the LORD's firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox, or sheep: it is the LORD's.

27And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation.

28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

[size=14pt]29None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
[/size]
30And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD.

31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

Take a look at these:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0WTtevBcQE&feature=sub



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Xv3a70fGw&feature=sub

Deep Sight:

Why do scientists think?

Why do athletes run?

Why do dogs bark?

Get it now? ? ? ?

Your question is preposterous because being religious requires prayer just as surely as being an athlete requires running?

You got to do better.

I suspect you do not have an intelligible reason for being an Atheist. Many people are Atheists on this Forum because its fashionable to be one. Can you give me your reason for calling yourself an atheist?

No - Many people are atheists because the god-narratives they have heard so far makes no sense. Do you believe in god? Which God is that - the Christian Gods, the Muslim gods, Zeus, Sussicorn, etc, etc?

Can you give us a positive primary definition of the god you believe in so that the atheists here on NL can examine. Maybe your god is the god all the atheists have been waiting for!

Just Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvsgo7NgR9k&feature=sub

i dont see why christ embassy has to be castigated for this,the man has never asked anyone to empty their life savings into the church coffers, rather than mentioning christ embassy ill advice you to tell your sister that giving money grudgingly(which she obviously did if she cant afford it)is the same as not giving at all and is in her bible,moreover i see a a pattern of pride in her actions because it seems she is probably trying to keep up with the joneses, she is probably competing with others who are giving a lot meaning that is an element of pride

You see! - This is the delusion a work here. If you have been brainwashed into accepting such inanity, you have no option but to want to give willfully and sincerely, considering that these clerical fraudsters also preach that "giving" is the key to receiving blessings.

Yes - they do receive blessing - and it is perpetual penury for the givers and luxury and wealth for the pastors.

Hello Prizm,

Have been a little indisposed and busy at work so I could not devote time to your detailed response to my post. Further I would have liked to see you attempt my question about the laws of logic and whether god is bound by such laws. Alas, you did not.

On the issue of why I highlight and enbolden some of my text - well this is an editorial device to draw attention to salient points in narrative. All the major publishers of books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc, etc, use this technique to attract the reader attention. In my case, if you did not want to read the full text, you might get the gisp from the highlighted bits.


Our discussions really centre around the following;

1) The Cosmological Argument.

2) Other sub-topics like Ontology of entities (Dragons, Satyr, etc) , meaning of words (atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc)

3) And importantly, you have challenge me to explain WHY I am an atheist, which I shall do in a subsequent post.

You have specifically challenged my to take a stand. Well my position is obvious - I am an atheist. As to how I justified my position, well that is why I introduce item 2 above - the question of the ontology of god. The other interesting issue was where the burden of proof lies.

Now, to the main debate. I ask you how you came to know that Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation - I asked whether it is 1) a priori 2) a posteriori 3) both a priori and a posteriori 4). You responded by asking:

Thanks for asking these questions. But before I answer them, I have a few questions to ask you first to see, from your answer, if we are working with the same meanings. I’ll make a number of statements and I’ll need you to tell me if you think these truth statements are a) a priori b) a posteriori c) both a priori and a posteriori d) None of the above.
i) Everything that has a shape has a size

ii) No event precedes itself

iii) Nothing can be red all over and at the same time blue all over

For each of these statements or premises (i-iii) I’ll need you to tell me whether your choice from (A) to (D), whatever that choice is, refutes or negates the premise. That is the real issue here.

These are my answers:

i) Everything that has a shape has a size: If this is true, which I am not 100% sure it is, then it is a priori. My strong feeling is that it is a priori.

ii) No event precedes itself: a priori

iii) Nothing can be red all over and at the same time blue all over. a priori.

Whether something is knowledge a priori or a posteriori is not a matter that refutes any premise. It simply allows us to assess the reliability of said knowledge. So if you say that

Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation

It is important that we know whether this knowledge is a priori or a posteriori. If it is a priori, then it is true beyond any doubt - it is true by definition or by necessity. However, if it is known a posteriori, then it is conceivable that this might not be true (in some situation).


On the question of the radioactivity of elements, you said

I suspect that the problem here is that you misunderstand the stochastic (random) and indeterminate/unpredictable nature of this spontaneous process to mean that it doesn’t have a cause or explanation. The cause or explanation of radioactive decay is simple – it is unstable nuclei. As a matter of fact, all you need to do is keep reading the Wikipedia page you got your definition from to see that radioactive decay is not even that mysterious. It is richly governed by the physical laws. Radioactive decay (of any type) is only possible because of the presence of unstable or radioactive nuclides. Radioactive or unstable nuclei, based on their configuration, have the property that a random slight disturbance could upset the apple cart as it were and facilitate another rearrangement of the particles in the nucleus followed by the release of heat energy. This is essentially what radioactive decay is. When a stable or ground state is reached, such decays cease.

Basically, that the unstable nuclei "causes" the decay. While this is true in the simple sense, I don't think it is true by the strict definitions of the notion of causation. Causation implies an event acting on some material to generate an effect. I doubt if the instability of the nuclei could be classed as an event. Can you conceive of a situation where the cause (which you say is the instability of the nuclei) is withdrawn C-14 to stop it decaying into N-14?

If you don't agree with this analysis, can you supply your definition of Causation?


Now on the questions of Ontology

I asked,

Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent unembodied (note the correction) being inter-acts with a physical universe? BY WHAT MECHANISM?
Which I elaborated with the questions:

1) Does he (God) created material things within the universe? If so, by what mechanism?

2) Can he (God) move an object from A to B? If so, by what mechanism?


From your various posts, I am able to gleen your ontological status of God as the following;

1) is a Necessary entity
2) transcendent being or mind
3) manifests freewill
4) unembodied
5) omnipotence or omniscience
6) consciousness but free will, superlative reason and logic.
7) with no spatial, material or temporal component

The above are attributes that you have used in various places in your post. You have also said the following about the ontological status of god;

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

As an omnipotent being however, he can interact and directly impact the physical realm/universe. So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. Such interventions would appropriately be supernatural interventions since by definition, a supernatural event is not simply an ‘implausible’, ‘impossible’ or counter-intuitive event, BUT an event that in its proper context cannot be adequately explained by a simplistic recourse to naturalistic explanations.

So you see - on one breath you say God is unembodies, necessary (which implies transcendent), and on the other you say "So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form.

[size=14pt]
Does this not smack of contradiction to you? Can God assume material form or not? If he can, does he lose his status as being necessary and transcendent? Can God bring a state of affair where he is material form? If he cannot can he be said to be omnipotent?
[/size]


I contend that your definition of God is illogical, internally contradictory and incoherent.

Take for instance the following question.


Can you create an object that is too big and heavy for you to lift? Can God do the same - i.e., Can God create something that is too big and heavy for him to lift?


Basically, no ontological definition I have seem so far has internal consistency, and all fail all logical and coherence tests. Because I have not come across any definition of God that is logical, coherent and consistent, I have no choice but to disbelief the concepts of God I have been presented with thus far. That explains why I am an atheist.

So you see, I need a consistent, valid, logical, coherent ontology of God, lacking in internal contradictions before I might consider changing my position. The gods you have define makes no sense. So tell me if your god can assume material form, by what means he does that, whether assuming material form makes him contingent and non-transcendent. If he cannot do these things, can he be said to be omnipotent?

I rest.

If you think that your religion and the bible provide meaning in your life, then you have not really read the bible. The bible spells out in on uncertain terms that "Everything Is Meaningless", absolute and utter meaninglessness under the sun.

Adn this is from apparently the wisest man that ever lived, King Solomon, declaring, the complete meaninglessness of life. Have a read below:



Ecclesiastes 1

1 These are the words of the Teacher, King David’s son, who ruled in Jerusalem.

2 “Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “completely meaningless!”

3 What do people get for all their hard work under the sun? 4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth never changes. 5 The sun rises and the sun sets, then hurries around to rise again. 6 The wind blows south, and then turns north. Around and around it goes, blowing in circles. 7 Rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full. Then the water returns again to the rivers and flows out again to the sea. 8 Everything is wearisome beyond description. No matter how much we see, we are never satisfied. No matter how much we hear, we are not content.

9 History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new. 10 Sometimes people say, “Here is something new!” But actually it is old; nothing is ever truly new. 11 We don’t remember what happened in the past, and in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now.

12 I, the Teacher, was king of Israel, and I lived in Jerusalem. 13 I devoted myself to search for understanding and to explore by wisdom everything being done under heaven. I soon discovered that God has dealt a tragic existence to the human race. 14 I observed everything going on under the sun, and really, it is all meaningless—like chasing the wind.

15 What is wrong cannot be made right. What is missing cannot be recovered.

16 I said to myself, “Look, I am wiser than any of the kings who ruled in Jerusalem before me. I have greater wisdom and knowledge than any of them.” 17 So I set out to learn everything from wisdom to madness and folly. But I learned firsthand that pursuing all this is like chasing the wind.

18 The greater my wisdom, the greater my grief. To increase knowledge only increases sorrow.

Ecclesiastes 3:

18 I also thought about the human condition—how God proves to people that they are like animals.
19 For people and animals share the same fate—both breathe and both must die. So people have no real advantage over the animals. How meaningless!
20 Both go to the same place—they came from dust and they return to dust.
21 For who can prove that the human spirit goes up and the spirit of animals goes down into the earth?
22 So I saw that there is nothing better for people than to be happy in their work. That is why we are here! No one will bring us back from death to enjoy life after we die.

Wanting to learn more about Christianity and the New Testament? Why not check out this site for a good read: http://www.darrellwconder.com/index.html?

During the forty years I spent inside Armstrong's cult church, I saw countless people come to the ministry for anointing fully expecting to be healed. But in virtually every case wherein a doctor was not consulted, I saw these people suffer and all too often die a premature death. These observations became concentrated when, in the mid 1970s, I was employed as an assistant to minister Joseph Tkach, Sr., [inset photo: standing to the right of Herbert Armstrong] who in 1986 would succeed Herbert W. Armstrong as Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God. At that time it was Tkach's job to oversee the needs of sick and needy members in the headquarter church's congregations. In 1978 I was introduced by Tkach to a 60 year old widow named Wanda Brockus, who was suffering with a severely painful back problem. This diagnosis came from a local chiropractor, the only type of "medical" professional approved by Herbert Armstrong.

Over the coming months Wanda and I became close personal friends, which was very easy since she had a wonderful personality. Because Wanda had no close living relations, I would often run personal errands and help out with other situations. One service I routinely performed was driving Wanda to the chiropractor's office. As the months passed, this experience became particularly upsetting for me since Wanda was in constant horrible pain. In fact her pain would substantially increase after each chiropractic "treatment," and often I would ask Joseph Tkach or Dr. Herman L. Hoeh to drive out to again "anoint" Wanda and ask for God's healing. Since she was obviously going downhill, I finally defied the church's teaching and privately persuaded Wanda to go to Pasadena's Huntington Hospital for tests.

The diagnosis was worse than anyone suspected. I still vividly remember Wanda's phone call when she told me that she had hip and pelvic bone cancer—and that the cancer had spread. Wanda had waited too long. A few months earlier and she could have been saved, but now her only recourse was to go home and wait for death. As a dyed-in-the-wool bible believer, I reminded Wanda of Jesus's healing power; I told her that the spreading cancer and all its pain was just a test of faith, and that when the healing came the "miracle" would be all the more spectacular! She was immensely cheered by my words, and by the outpouring of affection from the church's membership.

Over the next few months literally thousands of members prayed for Wanda's healing. In fact, the church's Ambassador College student body—some 600 strong—proclaimed a special day of fasting and prayer for Wanda; and the church's leading evangelists regularly stopped by to anoint her in the name of Jesus, all of which continued to have a remarkable effect on Wanda's faith. In turn, her faith and cheerful disposition encouraged all those who came to visit—so much so that evangelist Dibar Apartian made Wanda the centerpiece of an article in the church's Good News magazine. But in the coming months Wanda's cancer worsened and despite all the prayer and multiple anointings, she died an excruciating death.

Where was the healing promised by Armstrong and his ministry? In his booklet, The Plain Truth About Healing, Herbert W. Armstrong attempted to explain this when he relates the circumstances of his father's death:

Continue here http://www.darrellwconder.com/healing.html

Miracle workers who couldn’t heal themselves!!!

1. John Osteen, Word of Faith mega-church pastor in Houston - his wife, Dodie got liver cancer and through the mercy of God and medical attention survived.
2. Frederick K. Price, Word of Faith mega-church pastor in Los Angeles - his wife, Betty got cancer and was medically treated (chemo-therapy) and by the mercy of God was patched up.
3. Jamie Buckingham, Discipleship Movement & charismatic author - died of cancer. Jamies too was under a medical doctors care.
4. Charles Capps, Word of Faith teacher, teaches power of our words to create reality - his wife got cancer and was medically treated.
5. John Wimber, Signs & Wonders Movement, author of "Power Healing," - just died from cancer. He too, was medically treated - no "power" healing for him, only chemo-therapy.
6. Mack Timberlake, Word of Faith pastor - suffering from throat cancer, getting medical attention.
7. R.W. Schambach, Faith Healer - got a quadruple heart bypass (from a real live human doctor)
8. Dr. Hobart Freeman, Word of Faith teacher & pastor of Faith Assembly - over 90 people died in his church following his teaching and then Hobart died due to a medically treatable disease.
9. Prophet Keith Grayton, Prophetic Movement - died of the complications of AIDS
He spoke at our Church in Detroit, and declared he was totally healed. He died a year or so later.
10. Kenneth Hagin, "father" of the Word of Faith Movement - sister died of cancer, (he wears glasses)
Hagin’s great faith and special anointing could not keep her on the planet.
11. Katherine Khulman - an acknowledged divine healer DIED from heart disease in Ann Arbor Michigan.
A.A. Allen - an acknowledged divine healer and exorcist DIED from alcohol & drug abuse.
Aimee Semple McPherson - an acknowledge divine healer - died of a barbituate overdose. Why was she taking pills in the first place? Wasn't the "peace" of God enough for her?
Jack Coe - an acknowledged divine healer DIED from disease.

from: http://www.bible.ca/tongues-miracles-fake-pentecostal.htm

ah, here it is - scandals of the evangelical mind.

Deep Sight:

That's fine, open the thread, i will meet you there.

Thankx. Have just opened this thread for that discussion: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-323561.0.html

What truths about the nature of reality have any of the spiritual philosophies and theological traditions ever revealed? There are many od such traditions, each claiming to reveal some Truths about reality-Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Rosicrusianiam, Islam, Grail, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc, etc, etc.

What TRUTHS have these traditions produced? Have human understanding of the world been improved by any of these traditions?


Take the following irreproachable facts about these particular reality;

1) Did any of these traditions ever reveal the truth about humans origins as being from Africa?

2) Did any of these traditions say anything about our place in the vastness of the cosmos?


Have they revealled any TRUTHS that have advanced the plight of humankind on this planet?


On what epistemic grounds does one reject one or more of these traditions while embracing one (or more)?

Deep Sight:

Respectfully, Huxley, these questions are entirely outside the purview of this thread and what i set out to prove, so i wish not to be distracted by them, thanks.

OK, do you mind addressing these on a separate thread?

DeepSight,

You said the following:

@ mazaje - i am not a slavish adherent of anything fed to me by any one. You should have noticed that by now. It took me many years to arrive at my conclusions trust me. In the past i have been an Anglican, Jehovah's Witness, Rosicrucian, considered Islam, and almost Crossbearer. I have read the bible, the quoran, the grail message, and many Buddhist, Taoist, shintoist, and even hindu philosophies because i am a SEEKER. So don't worry, lets just reason along little by little, we will get there,

If this is true, then you have indeed been an inverterate seeker after the "spiritual", whatever that means. I am curious - what did you learn from all these "philosophies" about how reality is constituted? In other words;

[size=14pt]What TRUTHS about the nature of reality have any of the spiritual philosophies and theological traditions ever elucidated or discovered?
[/size]

Did any of these traditions ever reveal the truth about humans origins as being from Africa?

Did any of these traditions say anything about our place in the vastness of the cosmos?

Have the revealled any TRUTHS that have advanced the plight of humankind on this planet?