-Removed-wow, you are correct, thanks, how come i never read this one, oh well we live and learn.
yes the point about recovering sight is that it would have probably been too much for the man to receive sight all at once, you know like going from complete darkness to light and perhaps damaging to his newly acquired sense, therefore to avoid this the transition was made gradually which is reflected in the proper translation, he recovered sight, rather than was given sight, and i suspect the case was probably the same as in the account you stated, anyhow that it is supposition cannot be denied but it seems reasonable, but thanks for the reference, no need to apologize, the content is good enough for me - regards Robbie.
-Removed-Did you ever consider that these tales of curing the blind are not meant to be taken literally? They are metaphors for getting people to see his message properly. Jesus altered their understanding, not their eyeballs. But you have corrupted the tale by literalizing it and turning it into a tawdry 'miracle'. It is you, divegeester, who needs his blindness healed.
Originally posted by rwingettThen you must have a coherent conception of God? 😛
I mock your incoherent conception of god and your mythological conception of Jesus. Both are frauds and holdovers from the Dark Ages.
It is your conception of the truth that is incoherent. You are a victim of revisionists teachings.
Originally posted by vistesd"Are not some theists really claiming that what I should believe is—them? What they say the scriptures say? What they claim “God” is?"
Jaywill wrote the following in another thread, and it triggered a line of questioning that I have been considering:
Jaywill: “If some impressionable mind is caused to disbelieve in Christ and thus perish because I taught them to disbelieve the Bible, their blood could be my head.”
Now, the question is this (and this could be applied to some other reli ...[text shortened]... _____________
Well, that ought to be a sufficient range of questions to fuel some discussion.
Well, since I can't get a reponse to my reply to the questions raised in the body of your original post, I'll just answer this question.
"NO" Why would a "theist" expect you or anyone else to believe them?
Either the Bible is or isn't the word of God. Only you can decide. You choose.
But I'll tell you this. The Bible is a beacon of light in a dark world. Without it there would be complete chaos. Any rational thinking person who has examined the evidence of world history can see what the effects of the lack of Biblical truth can have on a civilisation.
Where the Bible is there is light!
Originally posted by josephwI think that on the outside chance that there is a god that he is inherently unknowable. I think that anyone who claims to know what god is is a fraud.
Then you must have a coherent conception of God? 😛
It is your conception of the truth that is incoherent. You are a victim of revisionists teachings.
Originally posted by rwingettYou think? So!
I think that on the outside chance that there is a god that he is inherently unknowable. I think that anyone who claims to know what god is is a fraud.
Do you think God is a fraud? Because that is what you're saying.
I KNOW God is. Do I know all about God? Hell no!
Since you don't know whether or not there is a God, don't be so presumptious as think someone else doesn't either. That kind of thinking makes you a fraud.
Originally posted by josephwTurn the other cheek, brother, turn the other cheek...
You think? So!
Do you think God is a fraud? Because that is what you're saying.
I KNOW God is. Do I know all about God? Hell no!
Since you don't know whether or not there is a God, don't be so presumptious as think someone else doesn't either. That kind of thinking makes you a fraud.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettwhen one examines the text one can easily discern that it was an actual happening, this is discernible from several components which distinguishes the miracles of Christ from myth and exaggerated stories, namely the simplicity of the event, completely free from guile and sensationalism, there was no staging as it was the result of a chance occurrence, the character of Christ and the character of the pharisees is so completely harmonious with what we know from the rest of the scriptures, the human aspect including the failure of the disciples to understand the nature of sin attributing it to the man or his parents, the threats of the pharisees to excommunicate the mans parents so that they refuse to acknowledge the Christ, the mans own testimony that leads him to acknowledge that Christ is a prophet, everything lends itself to the authenticity of an actual event.
Did you ever consider that these tales of curing the blind are not meant to be taken literally? They are metaphors for getting people to see his message properly. Jesus altered their understanding, not their eyeballs. But you have corrupted the tale by literalizing it and turning it into a tawdry 'miracle'. It is you, divegeester, who needs his blindness healed.
its only when one tries to take the divine element from the passage that error and ambiguity start to surface, which is a main characteristic of rationalists and atheists, for to be sure they cannot discern the difference between their bum and their elbow, but persist in doubt and speculation of which you yourself are a pathetic example, lol, forever learning yet unable to come to an accurate knowledge of truth, a man blown here and there by every speculative wind of teaching, you would have others also persist in your own doubtful course, for to be sure the light that is in you is darkness, a little worm that loves the safety of darkness, that thrives on postulation and ambiguity, exposed to the light he cannot handle it and squirms away into the depths of speculation and self delusion.
Originally posted by vistesdIf someone makes a claim about God (or Jesus, or the Bible) that seems to some of us unreasonable, does God not want such claims to be challenged? --------visted--------
Jaywill wrote the following in another thread, and it triggered a line of questioning that I have been considering:
Jaywill: “If some impressionable mind is caused to disbelieve in Christ and thus perish because I taught them to disbelieve the Bible, their blood could be my head.”
Now, the question is this (and this could be applied to some other reli ...[text shortened]... _____________
Well, that ought to be a sufficient range of questions to fuel some discussion.
Of course , the Bible is full of questions and railing against God. The Jewish people were always either angry at him or pleading with him or asking pertinent questions. Real Christianity is actually a dynamic hotbed of doubts and questions not some compliant nonsense.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI, personally, would have a lot more respect for many Christians if they admitted to having some doubts. You'd be able to tell that they were thinking at least a little. But it seems to me that many Christians think of it like a house of cards - if they admit to any doubt whatsoever then the whole edifice will come crumbling down around them. Or perhaps they falsely perceive that skeptics like myself will exploit any chink in their armor to slip in a dagger.
If someone makes a claim about God (or Jesus, or the Bible) that seems to some of us unreasonable, does God not want such claims to be challenged? --------visted--------
Of course , the Bible is full of questions and railing against God. The Jewish people were always either angry at him or pleading with him or asking pertinent questions. Real Christianity is actually a dynamic hotbed of doubts and questions not some compliant nonsense.
Additionally, there seems to be an insatiable craving for certainty among many Christians. Admitting that they don't know, or living with a certain amount of doubt, is abhorrent to them. I find it difficult to fathom.