Feed on Posts or Comments 17 December 2014

Christianity &Science Johnson on 09 Oct 2008 03:06 am

God never heals amputees, but now science can

When Christians pray to God to heal an amputated limb, nothing ever happens.

However, medical science has advanced to the point where we can now transplant two new arms onto a double amputee:

World’s first double arm transplant patient delighted

Note how ecstatic this man is to have new arms:

Karl Merk, a German dairy farmer whose arms had been amputated after an accident, said he felt like a “whole man” again as he spoke for the first time since the operation in July.

“The feeling is indescribable. Every day I gain more mobility,” said Mr Merk as he showed off the arms, which are being supported by a special “corset” while the healing continues.

Obviously God is imaginary. Any rational person can see that. But Christians cling to the notion that their God exists, and that he answers all sorts of prayers every day.

So, if you are a Christian, ask yourself: Why won’t God heal amputees? Why does God hate amputees? Why would your God deny the happiness that this man is experiencing by completely ignoring the prayers of amputees and spontaneously restoring their limbs through prayer? You believe that your God heals cancer… why not amputated limbs as well?

If you give these questions careful thought, you will realize that your God is imaginary.

51 Responses to “God never heals amputees, but now science can”

  1. on 09 Oct 2008 at 10:55 am 1.Hermes said …

    It’s a commercial, but it says it better than I could at this moment;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EdaLfJjDuE

    The world is just awesome.

    Humanity is just awesome.

  2. on 09 Oct 2008 at 11:52 am 2.something said …

    Some idiot christian will say, “oh but God inspired the doctors who did this surgery. God works thru men – Praise Jesus!”

    If that is true, why didn’t God inspire doctors to do this 4,000 years ago?

  3. on 09 Oct 2008 at 6:32 pm 3.Hermes said …

    Something: “If that is true, why didn’t God inspire doctors to do this 4,000 years ago?”

    Agreed. Isn’t it sickening?

    The answer will be something along the lines that it’s the fault of the humans it took so long — the ‘fallen nature’ and other self-flagellating psychoses — while the progress is claimed only to happen because of the glory of the Christian deity; the source of anything positive.

    The formula is insulting;

    * All human successes are claimed by Christians.

    * All failures of Christianity are projected on everyone else — including ‘false Christians’ in different sects.

  4. on 09 Oct 2008 at 6:59 pm 4.SteveK said …

    Something: “If that is true, why didn’t God inspire doctors to do this 4,000 years ago?”

    Agreed. Isn’t it sickening?

    Is it really sickening? You beg the question: is God required to do this then, now, or at any time? Christianity says God’s grace is sufficent under all circumstances. Grace is a complex subject and not fully understood, but we all have experienced the truth that grace can overcome adversity. You seem to be saying it can’t overcome the adversity of existing without limbs. Tell that to Nick Vujicic, whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting in person. He would disagree with that conclusion.

  5. on 09 Oct 2008 at 7:59 pm 5.A real Christian said …

    I FEEL REALLY SORRY FOR YOU GUYS>>>>YOU NEED GOD.
    I’ll PRAY FOR YOU WHETHER YOU THINK IT WORKS OR NOT.
    YOUR IGNORANCE IS PAINFUL FOR ME TO READ…
    YOU GUYS ARE A SAD LAUGH>>>>>>!

  6. on 09 Oct 2008 at 11:38 pm 6.Hermes said …

    SteveK: “You beg the question: is God required to do this then, now, or at any time?”

    Not at all;

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/rationalizations.htm

  7. on 09 Oct 2008 at 11:48 pm 7.Hermes said …

    Perfect = “A real Christian” All caps, ignorance, and bigotry.

  8. on 10 Oct 2008 at 1:51 am 8.nugget said …

    Perfect = “A real Christian” All caps, ignorance, and bigotry.

    Hermes, i am truly sorry for the following, but we are ignorant to all beliefs and interpretations. I am not saying that we all believe in something that is wrong or absurd. My point is people since the dawn of time have contradicting and fighting each other to stand for what they believe in. Whether it’s in politics, religion, sexual beliefs, whatever it may be. Nevertheless, you can not just point out that “a real Christian” is ignorant, and bigotry; for which we all are. Some more than others, but we all are.

  9. on 10 Oct 2008 at 2:12 am 9.Hermes said …

    Nugget, the person “a real Christian” no doubt thinks that most people who say they are Christians are not true Christians and those people — as well as everyone else — is going to Christian Hell … because they should.

    As I am not a Christian, I have no pull with these people. They keep advocating ignorance (ID and abstinence only sex ed) and bigotry (laws against private consensual actions between adults).

    Do I give myself — or you — a clean pass from criticism? Of course not. But, from your comments I take it that you like me look for and acknowledge our own failings and work as best we can to purge ourselves of these moral and intelectual defects.

    Yet, we swim in the broth of human relations; to not comment on the negative aspects would be negligent. You agree with me on this or you would not feel compelled to respond to my comment on “a real Christian”‘s post.

    If you want to show me that this person is no more willfully ignorant, no more willfully biggoted, and no more willfully repressed than others without dogmatic beliefs, go for it. This person’s actions speak for them and about them.

    “a real Christian” has shown no interest in talking, and acts like many other bigots I’ve dealt with in the past. They have no interest in discussion, but in grand standing and belittling. If that’s what they want, I can take it and I can give it. I’m in that conflict and am not ignoring it as if I were on Olympus. Well, not at the moment.

  10. on 10 Oct 2008 at 2:24 am 10.Hermes said …

    Nugget, keep in mind that “a real Christian” is both mocking the people who made it possible for Karl Merk to have arms again .. while ignoring the obvious; why won’t the Christian God heal amputees?

    There is no interest and excitement with the human made ‘miracle’ … nor is there any lucid challenge to the issue that is ignored of the lack of godly ‘miracles’ for people like Mr. Merk.

  11. on 10 Oct 2008 at 3:21 am 11.nugget said …

    Yes i do agree with you on some terms Hermes, terms like “real Christian” came out of left field with his/her comment or maybe he/she does not even want to discuss an argument like this because he/she may not have a good argument to battle with, like you already know. Regardless, his/her comment should be ignored because his/her stating the obvious, based on his/her perspective, has no argument developed or demonstrated along with his comment.

    On terms with mocking, I can no longer take your side because he/she at no time mentioned the video in his/her comment. Now, i do find it disrespectful that a Christian put down a group of his/her fellow creations of God, when it clearly states in the bible to love your enemy and your friends with:

    YOU GUYS ARE A SAD LAUGH

  12. on 10 Oct 2008 at 5:03 am 12.Hermes said …

    “On terms with mocking, I can no longer take your side because he/she at no time mentioned the video in his/her comment.”

    I can see that.

    That said, since they were commenting in the wrong location on a different issue from the blog post — and they did not make it clear what they were commenting on — they effectively have said nothing except that they are emotionally frazzled and displeased.

    Well, join the club … now as a member learn to use words in the proper context.

  13. on 10 Oct 2008 at 5:34 am 13.Hermes said …

    As for; “Now, i do find it disrespectful that a Christian put down a group of his/her fellow creations of God, when it clearly states in the bible to love your enemy and your friends”, I have two comments;

    1. Christians are as compassionate as non-Christians. I’ve found that few Christians that ‘walk the walk’ … about the same proportion as non-Christians. Statistics back this up (and I’m being kind here). Look for yourself;

    nationmaster.com (world statistics)
    statemaster.com (USA statistics only)
    adherents.com (world religious statistics)

    2. I think it is unreasonable to love (really love) anyone you do not know. I realize that ‘love’ can be divided up like the types of snow if you are an Eskimo. I’m talking about the normal case of what people mean by love between people.

    Yes, I can force the emotion and ‘love everyone’ yet forcing it does not maintain that emotion when I relax. A few monks in Asia have been able to maintain that but they do so only after years of effort to make it natural to them.

    Meanwhile, as a normal person, I feel compelled to love a small group of people — compelled internally because I can’t *not* love them as opposed to choosing that I will love some arbitrary group or not. When anyone says they ‘love everyone’, I consider that they are either on a chemical substance, lying, in a cult, or mangled the word ‘love’ out of any common usage. What’s the proper response to that?

    Yet, note that we haven’t talked about the topic of the blog post; a man has started to use arms he was not born with after having his original set ripped off in a horrible accident. The comments from Something and I were on this topic, and positive towards this amazing result of hard work of the many people involved. Everything else posted is a distraction.

    FRIGGEN ARMS! Can you imagine getting your arms ripped off and then after years of living without them being able to use another set from a donor?

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

  14. on 10 Oct 2008 at 7:58 am 14.nugget said …

    Yes, I understand that must extremely painful to live like that. Nevertheless, it was only a matter of time before the field of medicine would have accomplished if i am correct its been over 400 years of continuously trying to make a transplant successful on all body parts. I have a college teacher who had a heart transplant and now is grateful and prays to the Lord everyday giving thanks to Him that she is still alive.

    If you really take this into account, how an organ can develop cellular memory over a period of time and correspond with the individual’s brain resulting in a complete body at the end is truly amazing and TO ME is an act of God and to atheist what is it that you call that?

  15. on 10 Oct 2008 at 11:36 am 15.Hermes said …

    “If you really take this into account, how an organ can develop cellular memory over a period of time and correspond with the individual’s brain resulting in a complete body at the end is truly amazing and TO ME is an act of God and to atheist what is it that you call that?

    Do you know what an atheist is?

    In your own words, tell me so that I know you know who you are talking to.

  16. on 11 Oct 2008 at 3:58 am 16.nugget said …

    An Atheist rejects all beliefs of deity or any existence of a God/Supernatural being. I was referring to an atheist, on what they would call this? according to my knowledge, what i think they would call this is a breakthrough in science, but i do not know. Hermes, may i ask your perspective on this? or what would you call this maybe you have another perspective than the rest?

  17. on 11 Oct 2008 at 10:57 am 17.Anonymous said …

    Nugget, an atheist is not a theist. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other personality traits and beliefs may apply to specific people, but those extras are not a necessity for all atheists. As such…

    Nugget: “An Atheist rejects all beliefs of deity or any existence of a God/Supernatural being.”

    …is not valid. It doesn’t even apply to most atheists. For example, like most atheists in the forums here and all other places I’m familiar with, I’m an agnostic atheist.

    An agnostic atheist is someone who basically agrees with the statement; “I do not know for certain, but I think there are no gods.”

    If you go to the forums here, you can verify that for yourself. About half of all visitors self-identify as some kind of agnostic atheist (ignostic and apnostic included). Only a few say they know no gods exist;

    Source: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=833

    As with most atheists, if you show me a deity or (at a minimum) show me how a deity or deities in general are more likely than not, and I’ll stop being an agnostic atheist and become some kind of theist.

    The majority of monotheists, though, self-identify themselves as gnostic theists — “I know for certain that only one specific god exists”. They basically reject the idea that there could not be a specific deity.

    So, a theist has a belief in one or more deities. Theism adds an attribute to a person. An atheist lacks that belief; the attribute is not added. Without theists being predominate, there would be no reason to use the word atheist at all.

    Before I continue, I want to know that you understand this small but important difference between your definition of an atheist and the one atheists actually use.

    If you require additional information, feel free to point out what you disagree on but please provide some reference that can be used as a talking point.

  18. on 11 Oct 2008 at 11:02 am 18.Hermes said …

    I wrote the post above taged “Anonymous”.

  19. on 11 Oct 2008 at 10:51 pm 19.nugget said …

    According to you Hermes, you clearly stated what was an atheist?, you never clarified on what specific atheist you talking about. Therefore, the definition that i applied in my previous comment was correct, but it can varies under certain circumstances with it’s variety. Now, if you go into agnostic atheist, thats a different topic because it simply falls under agnosticism. Atheistic can vary into many different other religions or beliefs.

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/about.html

  20. on 11 Oct 2008 at 11:35 pm 20.Hermes said …

    I asked both atheists and theists what they thought, and what came back was a rough consensus;

    Gnostic/agnostic/… refers to knowledge.

    Theist/atheist/… refers to belief.

    The two categories are required for a proper definition. Go look at the poll I ran and look at the definitions yourself. Where do you fit?

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=833

    Does this help?

  21. on 12 Oct 2008 at 3:12 am 21.nugget said …

    Gnostic Monotheist, i am a categorized under Christian, although my beliefs derive from my own understandings of the bible or my own interpretations.

  22. on 12 Oct 2008 at 10:44 am 22.Hermes said …

    I’ve talked with thousands of Christians, and your perspective is not unique.

  23. on 12 Oct 2008 at 10:46 am 23.Hermes said …

    Something to consider … from an unscholarly source;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbqzlofFJMI

  24. on 13 Oct 2008 at 2:24 am 24.Christ's Soldier said …

    Hermes, and nugget, you guys have a slot to say…a lot to say

  25. on 13 Oct 2008 at 2:27 am 25.Christ's Soldier said …

    Hermes, nugget, legitimately, why do you oppose those who have faith in God? I am not trying to “call you out”, or make you look bad, I am simply asking.

  26. on 13 Oct 2008 at 3:24 am 26.nugget said …

    Hermes, this video i assume it falls under Agnostic Monotheist. This prophet, which sadly is an alien, has another perspective on what the belief of God is. Which is acceptable, no argument there, but my faith and structure revolves around Gnostic’s concern and beliefs. Some of the video interpretations of the understanding of God, i agree with and some points i do not.

    Christ’s soldier, i do not oppose no ones faith or beliefs. I just simply imply that my understandings of God are similar to yours in a way. However, i believe that they are more revelation in the bible than a typical Christian can see or hear. I am a Christian, now i refuse to accept that there is one way to look at the bible, simply because the bible was written(translated) by thousands of men in how they saw/understood the bible. Although, the principle message is clear to every Christian.

    All types of people oppose the bible or one’s belief in a biased manner and by typically calling them “delusional”,”stupid” or whatever types of names they use, instead of proceeding the discussion in unbiased manner.

  27. on 13 Oct 2008 at 3:38 am 27.nugget said …

    Hermes, what i am trying to say by the comment that i previously posted, is how Christianity, in general, constructed a massive variety of beliefs and understandings through thousands of generations. For example, the difference between Christians and Catholics, or the Quran and the Holy Bible.

  28. on 13 Oct 2008 at 2:23 pm 28.Hermes said …

    Christ’s Soldier: “Hermes, … legitimately, why do you oppose those who have faith in God? I am not trying to “call you out”, or make you look bad, I am simply asking.”

    Long story short? Till about 2001, I was not paying attention. Since then, I’m quite aware of what religion is doing positively and negatively. I’m also aware that Christians — the dominate religious group — were on the one hand advocating actions that caused harm to others and on the other hand were not standing up enough to object and block those harms.

    If Christians did deal with those negative effects, I’d have no issues. To each their own; it is not my business what people think or do in private to themselves;

    “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson”

    Yet, harm is occurring. Ignorance and bigotry are advocated strongly. What we know to be true is being set aside because it contradicts dogmas, and people are dying.

    It’s not my fault that Christians are doing those things, but as Christians are not doing enough it becomes my civic responsibility; it is my problem now.

    I can go into detail, but will not spend the effort in a blog post. Join me in the forums if you want those details.

  29. on 13 Oct 2008 at 9:55 pm 29.Hermes said …

    Nugget, I wrote a fairly long reply and then decided it didn’t matter. You’ve explained your perspective well enough, and I see no need to delve into it in detail.

    Getting back on topic, you wrote;

    “Yes, I understand that must extremely painful to live like that. Nevertheless, it was only a matter of time before the field of medicine would have accomplished if i am correct its been over 400 years of continuously trying to make a transplant successful on all body parts. I have a college teacher who had a heart transplant and now is grateful and prays to the Lord everyday giving thanks to Him that she is still alive.”

    People are amazing. The progress over the next hundred years will be astounding — in knowledge and understanding of how we fit in the universe and what we know of it. Yet, efforts in theology haven’t progressed at the same pace.

    I had one person point to the work of Pope John Paul II “The Theology of the Body” as ‘ground breaking’ but they had to concede that years after publication no new knowledge has sprung from that work … only more interpretations of what JP2 meant.

    Meanwhile, during the same period of time, CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has come online and we are beginning to learn more about the fabric or reality. Maybe, just maybe, we will learn the grand unified theory of physics? On the the human scale, we are learning more about how our nervous systems work — including in areas such as morality and what it means to be human. Places that have been torn by speculations — often contradictory — between both philosophers and theologians.

    “If you really take this into account, how an organ can develop cellular memory over a period of time and correspond with the individual’s brain resulting in a complete body at the end is truly amazing and TO ME is an act of God and to atheist what is it that you call that?”

    An atheist? I hope you realize from previous comments that I can not answer honestly for other atheists any more than I can for theists.

    I had a girlfriend once who would occasionally stop me and ask a bizarre question, usually after I noticed something and excitedly pointed it out to her. The question was ‘How can you be so amazed with the world and not think there is a god?’ I’d respond ‘Isn’t that amazing?’ She’d agree. The point is simple; the world _is_ amazing. Period. As said by Penn Jillette;

    “I’m not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it’s everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me.”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

  30. on 13 Oct 2008 at 11:27 pm 30.nugget said …

    “I had a girlfriend once who would occasionally stop me and ask a bizarre question, usually after I noticed something and excitedly pointed it out to her. The question was ‘How can you be so amazed with the world and not think there is a god?’ I’d respond ‘Isn’t that amazing?’ She’d agree.”

    This quoted comment and the article shows there is some type of uncertainty in people’s beliefs. Gaps that they cannot fill themselves.Only through research and continuously not-stop searching for an answer, those gaps may be filled. I think that by studying chemistry and physics you can only bring yourself closer to God.

    Now, believing in God is not the same as having faith in the Lord. According to the bible, the devil believes in God, but he left God’s side to become better. However, the faith of the devil is not with God, instead it’s to take people to their corruption. One day, we will all know the truth if this is a fairytale, or not and those gaps will be filled.

  31. on 14 Oct 2008 at 12:41 am 31.nugget said …

    “Yet, efforts in theology haven’t progressed at the same pace.”

    I agree with that to a certain extent, my argument here is we are continuiously trying to overthrow science or giving light to the wicked. Now, with this said, science keeps finding ways to progress. While theology, keeps finding ways to show how science is developed or constructed by God with relations of the bible and science.

    If you take the numbers into account, the majority of kids now-a-days want to get into the field of medicine or science. I HAVE NEVER heard a child say “i want to study God”. Statistically, theology is tremendously smaller in the research field opposed to science(stating the obvious).

    Theology has discovered some ways to prove that some events of the bible did occur. Like “Sodom and Gomorrah” and the discovery of “Noah’s Ark”, which plenty of stories developing more evidence on the stories.

  32. on 14 Oct 2008 at 2:06 am 32.Hermes said …

    Nugget, to your first most recent comment, personally, ‘I have no need for that hypothesis’(after Laplace). Devils and deities are interesting to me in a similar way that they were interesting to Joseph Campbell.

    In the final assessment, I am for reality. Part of reality is what we make it by our actions, but the other is what we are capable of understanding about it. For that, nothing beats looking. On that note, I will continue with your second most recent post.

  33. on 14 Oct 2008 at 2:10 am 33.Hermes said …

    “If you take the numbers into account, the majority of kids now-a-days want to get into the field of medicine or science. I HAVE NEVER heard a child say “i want to study God”. Statistically, theology is tremendously smaller in the research field opposed to science(stating the obvious).”

    Yet, religious groups do not want for money. The Catholics could easily fund a LHC level theology if they wanted to … yet, that does not happen. Where there is a lack of a will, there is a story.

    “Theology has discovered some ways to prove that some events of the bible did occur. Like “Sodom and Gomorrah” and the discovery of “Noah’s Ark”, which plenty of stories developing more evidence on the stories. ”

    Do you mean Noah’s boat or the world wide flood?

  34. on 14 Oct 2008 at 4:06 pm 34.nugget said …

    Agreed, i should respect the matter that you do not believe in dieties of any sort.

    Back to the discussion about theology, yes.. Catholic and Christian churches or foundations can support theologists worldwide, but wouldn’t it contradict the purpose of a non-porfit organization in a way?. Now, they can open a global funding for it, but i do not think they will.

    The discovery of Noah’s Ark, not a worldwide flood, was made public and the region was made into a park. Carbon-dating made the ark eligible to the biblical timeline. Now, there is contradiction between the story of Noah in the Jewish culture and Babylonian culture. Nevertheless, the ark was discovered in Turkey and near Mt. Ararat.

  35. on 14 Oct 2008 at 5:20 pm 35.Hermes said …

    “… wouldn’t it contradict the purpose of a non-porfit organization in a way?. Now, they can open a global funding for it, but i do not think they will.”

    Religious groups aren’t necessarily non-profits. A non-profit is bound to generally zero out credits and debits at the end of the year and to do so in an open and verifiable way. Religious groups don’t necessarily report and or get external financial audits. The RCC is the largest, though the estimated assets range I found is just about useless; $100 billion up to $3 trillion (both in USD) with the low end being liquid and the high end being a mix of both.

    Additionally, the whole purpose of these organizations, beyond the normal goal of any institution to perpetuate itself, is to bring people closer to the tenets and beliefs of the organization … and thus increase the number of adherents.

    If investing in theology would allow these groups to reach the secondary goals of bringing people closer and increasing the number of adherents, then they would be compelled to do so. Yet, all efforts are spend on direct advertisements (including proselyting) or maintaining current institutional activities.

  36. on 14 Oct 2008 at 5:29 pm 36.Hermes said …

    “The discovery of Noah’s Ark, not a worldwide flood, was made public and the region was made into a park. Carbon-dating made the ark eligible to the biblical timeline. Now, there is contradiction between the story of Noah in the Jewish culture and Babylonian culture. Nevertheless, the ark was discovered in Turkey and near Mt. Ararat.”

    Carefully check those sources. I had a bet for $10,000 (USD) with a Muslim many months ago on the combined existence of Noah’s Ark (the boat) and the worldwide flood. That offer quickly fell apart, though I can’t remember the details. I can look them up if you want the discussion was quite heated at points.

    From memory; the boat in Turkey was a geologic formation. The flood story itself came from the epic of Gilgimesh (~600 years before the estimates based on the OT account in the Bible).

    http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh

    There are some archaeologists that think that the flood story in Gilgimesh (and thus the OT Noah story) is related to a flood that happened between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea ~7-10K years ago. Last I checked, this was not commonly held by most archaeologists, though I would have to check.

  37. on 15 Oct 2008 at 12:11 am 37.nugget said …

    Hermes, you provide go information to back up your comments, which is good. The argument is not being answered, but creating pyramids which leads into other discussions. For example, churhces would provide funding for theology, because their beliefs are ignorant to others. Their faith is in one God and disregard any other opposing deities. You stated that RCC and other organizations do provide these funding for most archaeologists, but since their is a massive variety of interpretations of the “Word of God”, churches are mainly afraid to come across an ancient finding that may oppose a threat to their belief.This is why i believe they do not provide these funding.(obvious)

    Noah’s Ark was discovered and the evidence of it is very convincing. However, there are many stories of the biblical Noah, whether it’s from Gilgamesh or Babylonian or simply just biblical origin, even Chinese history record a flood in ancient times. Now, the story that you demonstrated between that Muslim and yourself, was really confusing, because Muslim believe in Koran, and the Koran clearly states that it was not a worldwide flood even in the footnotes it is quoted. Regardless, there was various studies to prove that this boat-shaped object was man-made and record a long time ago. According to the bible, Noah built the ship in six days or the bible makes us assume that? i do not know.. Regardless, the evidence proven that the ark was found is eligible for my belief and my faith in the Lord.

    If you want that evidence that i found, i can provide with video footage to decrease the level of migraines inflicted.

  38. on 15 Oct 2008 at 1:58 am 38.Hermes said …

    [posting early...going to bed soon...hopefully this is correct]

    Nugget: “The argument is not being answered, but creating pyramids which leads into other discussions. For example, churhces would provide funding for theology, because their beliefs are ignorant to others. Their faith is in one God and disregard any other opposing deities.”

    Not what I said. My emphasis was on a true investigation. Supposedly, Pope John Paul II’s “The Theology of the Body” was one such investigation, yet if it were then why haven’t others been able to move beyond interpreting JP2′s words and on to building on the work he did? Why is theology so stagnant?

    I have some ideas on why this seems to be the case, but I have not shared them yet here.

    “You stated that RCC and other organizations do provide these funding for most archaeologists”

    Not what I said. (see below)

    “but since their is a massive variety of interpretations of the “Word of God”, churches are mainly afraid to come across an ancient finding that may oppose a threat to their belief.This is why i believe they do not provide these funding.(obvious)”

    Possible, but not what I said. I was dryly identifying that;

    1. It’s very possible for religious institutions to provide funding for theology (archaeology was not mentioned; see #3 below). The RCC is the largest but (I’ll add now) not the only one by far.

    2. It is curious that no serious efforts in theology have occurred in modern times. There is no interest it seems in providing funding or initiative.

    3. There are (independent of #1) some archaeologists that think they may have found the flood event that is mentioned in the Gilgimesh epic and that Gilgimesh is the basis for the Noah story. The Black Sea + Gilgimesh connection is not accepted by archaeologists in general.

    “Noah’s Ark was discovered and the evidence of it is very convincing.”

    I’ve investigated a few, and none have panned out to show an actual boat. The most likely ones I know about were the ones I mentioned, but they are still not very supportive. Not finding ‘the boat’ is not conclusive evidence against the OT flood details, though.

    If I had to bet, I’d put both Gilgimesh and Noah in the important myth category (myths are culturally but not literally true; they aren’t ‘just a myth’ as Joseph Campbell pointed out).

    “However, there are many stories of the biblical Noah, whether it’s from Gilgamesh or Babylonian or simply just biblical origin, even Chinese history record a flood in ancient times.”

    Gilgamesh is Babylonian. It pre-dates the OT Noah story by 600 years.

    “Now, the story that you demonstrated between that Muslim and yourself, was really confusing, because Muslim believe in Koran, and the Koran clearly states that it was not a worldwide flood even in the footnotes it is quoted.”

    Then feel free to tell AFadly. He’s in the forums now. Just title a thread something like “AFadly: What are your thoughts on Noah?”

    “Regardless, there was various studies to prove that this boat-shaped object was man-made and record a long time ago.”

    Be specific. The only ‘Noah’s Ark discovery’ I know of was a mistake and has since been identified as a common geological formation in the area.

    “According to the bible, Noah built the ship in six days or the bible makes us assume that? i do not know.. Regardless, the evidence proven that the ark was found is eligible for my belief and my faith in the Lord.”

    If we can remain with facts that we can mutually agree upon, we can communicate on level ground and not make special exceptions. As a non-Christian, if I were to nod and grant you your faith claims it would be akin to lying or pitying you as I do not currently think them to be valid — no matter how valid they seem to you. Even young children are justified to resent that cloying treatment when they detect it.

    Additionally, the charge of relativism is often leveled against non-Christians. Yet, faith carves out a relativistic nitch for differing religious groups. I think it is reflexively reached for because within those religious groups faith is a given. Outside of those groups, even ones with strong faith claims, it does not help enlighten or bring to mutual closure topics under discussion.

  39. on 15 Oct 2008 at 12:02 pm 39.Hermes said …

    To bring this back to the topic of this blog post … theology has not addressed what medicine has corrected; amputees are healed by humans not gods. This is a fact.

  40. on 15 Oct 2008 at 2:13 pm 40.nugget said …

    Sorry for any offense from my previous comment, i simply misunderstood. I thought the ones that made discoveries were the archaeologists, not theologists.(that why i point that out). Theologists, i would say just do the research and the progress of analyzing. What i meant to say, these organizations support funds for these expeditions, that’s all. Again sorry if you were offended. Now, i do not know why Churches do not fund i just stated my opinion on why they probably do not provide these funds.
    On the topic of Noah, i stated Babylonian “OR” Gilgamesh for the simple reason that i knew they participated with one another. In the Gilgamesh era, they were stories and myths of all kinds, like the bible. Sumerians is also a extinct community, which is mentioned in this era, which later evolved into the Akkadians. Regardless, you have done your research, but the fact that you do not believe in this, let’s drop the subject and continue with the orignal topic.

  41. on 15 Oct 2008 at 3:00 pm 41.nugget said …

    Majority of amputees have lost their “parts” due to accidents and diseases. I can speak about the accidents related parts of this on behalf of God, the diseases results another story.

    Accidents that result in a person becoming a amputee may consist of motorcycles accidents, war accidents, or maybe just careless mistakes. In the video you demonstratded, the person has a farming accident, which was not explained so i can not speak for his accident. However, motorcycle accidents and war accidents that lead to this result, people were advised of the good and bad before they proceeded with buying a motorcycle or going to war. Now, take this into account before you say anything, we tend to blame God for all our mistakes or use Him as a way out. Wasn’t it OUR mistake that we ended up in a result so terrible as this? so the nwhy the blame towards God? I know your probably going to get one of the bible verses to respond to this, and thats exactly what i want.

  42. on 15 Oct 2008 at 10:25 pm 42.nugget said …

    By the way, the epic of Gilgamesh had a different type of calendar not similar to the Hebrew calendar. The Hebrew calendar had a Lunisolar calendar that consists a new month to be born on a new moon. There is no evidence on what day that moon became new or the Hebrew definition for a “new moon” and vice-versa. Therefore, the discussion as the flood was recorded 600 years before the biblical timeline can’t be discussed because there is not enough sufficient evidence to state that.

  43. on 15 Oct 2008 at 10:26 pm 43.nugget said …

    By the way, the epic of Gilgamesh had a different type of calendar not similar to the Hebrew calendar. The Hebrew calendar had a Lunisolar calendar that consists a new month to be born on a new moon. There is no evidence on what day that moon became new or the Hebrew definition for a “new moon” and vice-versa. Therefore, the discussion as the flood was recorded 600 years before the biblical timeline can’t be discussed because there is not enough sufficient evidence to state that. Although, they are similar in some aspects.

  44. on 15 Oct 2008 at 10:45 pm 44.nugget said …

    my fault on the previous two comments.

  45. on 15 Oct 2008 at 11:07 pm 45.nugget said …

    Reference to the calendars, its consists of massive information…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunisolar_calendar
    Pretty old video, but whatever…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PSZNYdfawQ

  46. on 16 Oct 2008 at 8:50 am 46.Hermes said …

    Nugget: Post #40. No offence.

  47. on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:10 am 47.Hermes said …

    “However, motorcycle accidents and war accidents that lead to this result, people were advised of the good and bad before they proceeded with buying a motorcycle or going to war.”

    Then we agree, in part. People take responsibility for their own actions. On top of that, life is dangerous. Even doing nothing can be dangerous. So, not exercising will kill you … but you could also slip at the gym and break your neck.

    Yet, where your comment jumps the shark is using personal responsibility as an excuse for why the Bible says one thing and reality shows us something else.

    Humans heal amputees. We see this.

    Gods don’t heal amputees. We see … nothing.

    The question of this web site is there as it draws a clear line. On one side, there are claims. On the other side, there is reality.

    So, is the most reasonable thing to blame the gods (as the disproof of thousands to millions has not been provided), or does reality point to the likelyhood that supernatural things don’t happen — and that by extention there aren’t any gods to blame for the good and bad things in the world?

    Sometimes the victim had responsibility. Sometimes the victim is a victim. No gods necessary.

  48. on 16 Oct 2008 at 9:28 am 48.Hermes said …

    Briefly, as this is way off topic.

    Calendars through time have changed. Does that mean that the world gets reset or that different places are in different time bubbles? Of course not.

    But, that’s not the point, is it? If you can’t entertain the possibility that precursors to stories in the Bible exist in other cultures, what’s the point of discussing these things as if we share a common world?

  49. on 16 Oct 2008 at 4:34 pm 49.nugget said …

    Hermes, you grow away from God. Majority of doctors all around see this breakthrough as a miracle of God. You prove nothing with this statement. Sorry, even people thank God for this breakthrough in medicine. Accordings to you, We do not need a God? The God that i believe in teaches me through His words you are able to be revived and begin a second chance at life, simply what your video is trying to prove but through a breakthorugh of human matters, which the majority of people of this era thank God for this.. “Atheist may say this is ignorance of the people”(paraphrase) But now Atheists believe in facts or statistics, right? Isn’t that the 2/3 of doctors believe that they have seen miracles with their patients?

    As for accidents or careless mistakes, i was just simply implying that people “bump their heads” as a little child would and expect their parents(God) to take away the pain, while the little child cries

    . -What i do claim is that there is a misunderstanding with what the Bible says and people interpretations.-

  50. on 16 Oct 2008 at 5:16 pm 50.nugget said …

    Off topic, the calendars examples was to show you that there is no argument with the difference of Babylonian and Hebrew timeline. The information that provided was to show you that.

    A common share that the common world can agree on is that noah’s ark was found, regardless of the world’s calendars. If i recall from my studies, the region of Hebrew culture consist to fall on Babylonian territory or Sumertian territory or Canaanite territory or blah, blah, blah. I never said it has or hasn’t evolved, that’s another topic. Yes, we can share or agree on stories were shared through out the world. Now, how many interpretations were there? impossible to find out.

  51. on 16 Oct 2008 at 7:03 pm 51.Hermes said …

    “Hermes, you grow away from God.”

    Would you say that to me if I told you I was a Hindu or a Buddhist?

    “Majority of doctors all around see this breakthrough as a miracle of God. You prove nothing with this statement. Sorry, even people thank God for this breakthrough in medicine.”

    If this is a miracle of your deity, then bad things that happen are also miracles of your deity.

    “Accordings to you, We do not need a God?”

    Need or not, I see no evidence of any deity — just assertions.

    If I did see evidence, and that was more compelling, I’m not one to reject reality.

    That said, there are two plausible deities that I have no objections to; the god of the Deists (or lower cased d deists) and pantheists.

    In both cases, reality does not contradict the claims of either group. That those claims are not supported positively makes deists and pantheist positions kinda like adding food coloring to water.

    “The God that i believe in teaches me through His words you are able to be revived and begin a second chance at life, simply what your video is trying to prove but through a breakthorugh of human matters, which the majority of people of this era thank God for this.”

    You and others can believe what you want. Reality isn’t a democracy, though. If you have proof that it is the work of your deity, go for it. If not, and we are left with hard working people doing the job, then we must thank them for the hard work or we are snubbing them inappropriately.

    ” “Atheist may say this is ignorance of the people”(paraphrase) But now Atheists believe in facts or statistics, right? Isn’t that the 2/3 of doctors believe that they have seen miracles with their patients?”

    Who are you paraphrasing?

    “As for accidents or careless mistakes, i was just simply implying that people “bump their heads” as a little child would and expect their parents(God) to take away the pain, while the little child cries.”

    Parents aren’t omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. They are human. Do you want me to flesh out this analogy? :/

    (If you do not consider your deity to be all three, that’s fine. I think you have strong support for that position in the Bible.)

    ” -What i do claim is that there is a misunderstanding with what the Bible says and people interpretations.-”

    That I agree with. I’d add that very few people have a good understanding of it in depth.

    Off hand, I’d say that Karen Armstrong (a former nun(?)) might be qualified enough to put it all in context. She has a series of books on religion, religions, and religious figures. Her book on Buddha was quite informative, making me want to look at some of her other works.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply