- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Ah I see the problem, they were women, and thus couldn't be righteous MEN, and thus their
The quote from James that the prayers of a RIGHTEOUS man availeth much.
God decides who is righteous and who is not.
So the women were foolish to put their faith in a man who clearly was not righteous.
prayers were ineffective....
But surely their preacher should have known that....
Also prop's point about how do you determine if your preacher is righteous or not,
If you need to be righteous for god to answer your prayers then god will only answer you
if you are righteous enough to ask god yourself to heal yourself.
If you are not the righteous, then you have to rely in the preacher to be righteous....
I agree based on the evidence that it is foolish indeed to believe your preacher to be righteous.
However, if you believe prayers are answered, and that god interviens to help those who are
righteous enough, followers of the true faith and all that, then you have to also believe that nobody
on the planes that hit the twin towers was righteous enough to deserve saving, that none of the people
killed in the towers including all the firemen who rushed to the scene were righteous enough.....
Would you like to try again...
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhat the pastors did was only douchey (very high levels of douchebaggery). not criminal. only if said hived people would be declared insane can they be charged with anything. otherwise, it is a choice done by the sick people.
Saw this posed in another thread (calling out sumydid) in regard to prayer.
James 5:16 .... pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
It reminded me of this article i saw on the BBC website.
[quote]At least three people in London with HIV have died after they stoppe ...[text shortened]... es be brought against the pastor for assisted suicide (which is illegal in the UK)/manslaughter?
where was god?
in heaven, not laughing (he is a very nice guy) but tsk-tsking on the stupidity of people. even fundamentalists should know better than to rely on god to get through an illness, after all it was jesus himself telling satan "thou shall not tempt god" when satan asked him to jump off a cliff and hope god will send angels. god gave us reason, we must use it. religion is supposed to heal the spirit, not the body.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Oh, but then they aren't trusting god.
I dont know. But the women without perfect knowledge about the status of their pastor should have proceeded with the aids treatment and still allow the pastor to pray for them. There is no need to choose one or the other.
Surely if they deserve to be saved god will save them.
You have to have faith.... isn't that what you guys always say?
Science works.
Prayer doesn't.
The preacher convinced these women this wasn't true.
Thus demonstrating the danger of religion, and abandoning reason and rationality.
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeIm not stupid like the pastor and you are not stupid like the aids women.
Ah I see the problem, they were women, and thus couldn't be righteous MEN, and thus their
prayers were ineffective....
But surely their preacher should have known that....
Also prop's point about how do you determine if your preacher is righteous or not,
If you need to be righteous for god to answer your prayers then god will only answer you ...[text shortened]... e firemen who rushed to the scene were righteous enough.....
Would you like to try again...
I dont have all the answers and neither do you.
The case in the op is clearly one of the blind leading the blind. And you know what happens .. they both fall into the ditch.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999And again, how do you tell if your preacher is not blind?
I'm not stupid like the pastor and you are not stupid like the aids women.
I don't have all the answers and neither do you.
The case in the op is clearly one of the blind leading the blind. And you know what happens .. they both fall into the ditch.
How do you know if ANY of the clergy/priesthood is not blind.
They all claim to know the word of god, how do their 'flock' tell the difference?
Science gives reasons for things, it's knowledge is testable, you can test if it is right.
You can't do that for religion, so again, how do you know your preacher is right?
If it was stupid of these women to trust their pastor then until you can demonstrate a
reliable way of determining if your pastor is righteous then it is stupid to believe ANY pastor.
10 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeIts stupid to believe that any pastor has the ability to save your life with prayer.
And again, how do you tell if your preacher is not blind?
How do you know if ANY of the clergy/priesthood is not blind.
They all claim to know the word of god, how do their 'flock' tell the difference?
Science gives reasons for things, it's knowledge is testable, you can test if it is right.
You can't do that for religion, so again, how do ...[text shortened]... able way of determining if your pastor is righteous then it is stupid to believe ANY pastor.
In the days of Paul and the Apostles, God had given these people the gifts of healing and raising the dead and doing miracles. So it was easy in those days to identify those sent by God. Its not easy today.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by stokerGiven that the disease is treatable, and we are talking about the l9ves of human beings,
given that there is 3 less with aids in this world are we not better world for it
beings with family and friends who a no-doubt crushed by these otherwise unnecessary deaths....
No the world is not a better place.
Claiming otherwise is unbelievably callous, insensitive, unjustified, ill-thought, and stupid.
Well done for representing yourself and your religion in such a revealing light.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Prove it.
Its stupid to believe that any pastor has the ability to save your life with prayer.
In the days of Paul and the Apostles, God had given these people the gifts of healing and raising the dead and doing miracles. So it was easy in those days to identify those sent by God. Its not easy today.
Many people claim to have the ability to faith heal today, including those multimillionaire
preachers who turn out the crowds in stadium sized mega-churches...
If they can lie about this, what else can they lie about?
Again, healing claims aside, how can you tell if anything a preacher claims about god and religion is true?
And till you can tell, isn't it foolish to believe any of them.
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell Im agreeing with you so far smartie ... cant you see that?
Prove it.
Many people claim to have the ability to faith heal today, including those multimillionaire
preachers who turn out the crowds in stadium sized mega-churches...
If they can lie about this, what else can they lie about?
Again, healing claims aside, how can you tell if anything a preacher claims about god and religion is true?
And till you can tell, isn't it foolish to believe any of them.
You are arguing with yourself.
I dont listen to preachers and pastors.
I read the Bible and study it for myself.
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI agree and that opinion expressed by Stoker Im sure is not representative of all of Christianity so dont go stereotyping and generalising.
Prove it.
Many people claim to have the ability to faith heal today, including those multimillionaire
preachers who turn out the crowds in stadium sized mega-churches...
If they can lie about this, what else can they lie about?
Again, healing claims aside, how can you tell if anything a preacher claims about god and religion is true?
And till you can tell, isn't it foolish to believe any of them.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999The bible being written by men who are not even around to talk to to tell if they are right, or telling the truth....
Well Im agreeing with you so far smartie ... cant you see that?
You are arguing with yourself.
I dont listen to preachers and pastors.
I read the Bible and study it for myself.
Entirely not foolish...
I do see that not every (or even perhaps many) Christians would agree with stokers statement.
Which is why I said represent "him" and "his" religion.
10 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgethe disease is not treatable, there are drugs that restrict its growth but do not cure.
Given that the disease is treatable, and we are talking about the l9ves of human beings,
beings with family and friends who a no-doubt crushed by these otherwise unnecessary deaths....
No the world is not a better place.
Claiming otherwise is unbelievably callous, insensitive, unjustified, ill-thought, and stupid.
Well done for representing yourself and your religion in such a revealing light.
but differ to other diseases this one spreads to others by various means [not just sexual would you take a blood donor from one?]
i may be insensitive but not ill thought or stupid as if by some chance you caught it by non sexual ie given infected blood how would you feel about that person. or your child caught it in some strange cercumstance.
i do represent myself not my religion, if i knew someone with any life threatning disease i would be happy to help that person, but would take all precautions more so with aids.
the world was a better place without this problem not much but better... the three and others may have got the problem without there knowledge and be inocent victims so how would they think if that person had died before spreading it to them sad or happy that they would have escaped its grip.
10 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999christianity is helping. this disease was spead by sexual practice at first then spread to the inocent, it not christian to condone this. but to help stop the spead. imagine me catching it then trying to tell others ive never indulged in this or any other sexual practice that may have infected me, i would be hard pressed to belive it of someone else. but take this point if you could kill all who have this and iradicate from the world total, would you do it if it was told to you that by doing it you would save more lives in the long term or would you say no let them live and the others can die. on a small scale if you had a gun and you met a man/women who has this, and you know that person will infect the 3 would you shoot to save or let them all die, no concequences even from god
I agree and that opinion expressed by Stoker Im sure is not representative of all of Christianity so dont go stereotyping and generalising.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Nov 11
Originally posted by stokerYour statement was insupportable, stop trying to dig a deeper hole.
the disease is not treatable, there are drugs that restrict its growth but do not cure.
but differ to other diseases this one spreads to others by various means [not just sexual would you take a blood donor from one?]
i may be insensitive but not ill thought or stupid as if by some chance you caught it by non sexual ie given infected blood how would you fee ...[text shortened]... person had died before spreading it to them sad or happy that they would have escaped its grip.