Peter, you’ve chosen to respond to a comment I made here; but on Ark’s blog. That’s fine, I can understand if you choose not to respond here.

As I do not respond on Ark’s blog – due to his lack of civility to responders who disagree with him; my alternative is to respond to you here.

Me: “And that’s the whole point and the beauty of how God has set up this whole system: we’re provided with enough evidence, and it’s up to each individual to weigh the evidence presented to them and to decide whether or not they believe it.”

Peter: “This statement has some serious issues because clearly not everyone is presented with the same evidence. Thomas was shown the wounds on the body of the risen Jesus. Paul saw a direct vision from heaven. Most others don’t have such evidence provided.

Further for a person who is born in a non Christian country, the general ‘evidence’ like creation would lead them to believe in their local deity not the Christian God.”

Everyone is presented with some of the same evidences. Every person born into this world has an intuitive knowledge of God. Further, every thinking person from childhood who looks at the sky, clouds, stars, trees, rocks, etc. begin to have the knowledge that there is some being out there beyond their comprehension who is responsible for the vastness, complexity, order of this universe. Some may not know Him by name, that doesn’t mean they don’t know Him.

Clearly, Thomas was shown evidence that others were not shown. This did not prevent the others from believing Jesus’ resurrection even though they were not given the additional evidence that Thomas was given.

Paul saw a direct vision from heaven, but countless others did not get a direct vision from heaven as he did. My point is simply this – we’re all given evidence; some are given more evidence than others as clearly some require more evidence than others.

Something truly fascinating and humbling about Jesus was that He did not reveal Himself to one single person who did not already believe in Him. I can see and understand how this would play out to the skeptical mind, but if one truly knows God (that He is meek and lowly=humble) then this revelation would not come as a surprise… it would be expected.

I watched the video you posted in response to your comments. I think both you and Mr. Loftus show what every person desires – the need to be heard; but also demonstrate what we’re all guilty of. Lyle  correctly puts it this way: “Reason is what I believe, those that disagree with me are therefore, unreasonable.”

  I have noticed that very reasonable and intelligent men differ widely on a large number of issues.  All seem to cling to the idea that their view is reasonable and the other side is unreasonable.  This would seem to point to the possibility that the problem may lie in the concept of reason itself.  Of course, to examine reason is like asking an eye to see itself.  When reason looks at reason, it does so through a dirty lens, and this brings us to the place to begin our investigation of reason.

I hope you will also agree that those of the atheist faith (especially on Ark’s blog) are even more mocking, ridiculing, denigrating to those of the Christian faith. Just ask GMF, yet he has always chosen to take the high ground. I know it’s not easy for him to do so, but he has purposed in his heart to do so, so it makes his choice a bit easier.

The reality is, there is no excuse for any of us to treat each other with ridicule and contempt because we espouse differing views.

Obviously, I disagreed with the majority of the things Mr. Loftus said, and was not surprised that someone who went to cemetery, umm seminary has no clue why God requires atonement for sin.

Would you invite an unrepentant killer to come and live in your home Peter?

I’ll end on the only points I can recall agreeing with: atheism cannot offer the same type of comfort that can only be found in Christ Jesus [I believe he used Christianity] and people are interesting.

But beyond interesting, they’re very complicated. Every living human being is connected, and we must first know and recognize how the things we put out there affects those around us.

None of us have it fully figured out, or are perfect in our walk; however the one who has already left is definitely ahead of the one who’s still at the starting point.

Peter: “So I have got to the point where I really can’t be bothered engaging with people who have a closed mind.”

I think the counter argument could be made that by disengaging because you believe they have a closed mind perhaps shows that you  also have a closed mind.

Lyle: If you want to see a circus go to YouTube and watch the intellectuals argue and debate the issues. All claiming to be reasonable and the other side unreasonable.


120 thoughts on “Response”

  1. Hi friend. Well, I see you have had an interesting time of things! I have gotten very far behind, and am about halfway getting caught up. I also changed up how I was tracking blogs I read, and I fear I lost you in the transition. Many apologies!

    1. Hey Wally! Good to hear from you. No worries!
      I’m into adjustment mode myself. I’m using a computer I normally avoid using for blogging… so obviously all my bookmarks etc. are on other computer not currently available to me.

      Yes, every once in a while I want to respond to something Ark says, but his incivility is not something one should deliberately subject themselves to, so I try to respond here.

      1. Yeah, I made the mistake of going over there once….never again.

        I used to have e mail notifications for blogs I follow and comment I made, but they haven’t worked in months. Then I was using the reader but could never stay caught up. Now, doing how you said, using bookmarks. That actually works really good unless somehow you don’t bookmark a blog, like somehow I didn’t yours.

      2. I know what you mean, I should take my own Biblical advice and do the same- “be not deceived, evil communication corrupt good manners”… it’s impossible to be around filth and not come away at least smelling awful.

        LOL that you’re bookmarking. That’s what I’ve been trying to do the past 2 weeks. As a matter of fact I was thinking of putting a page with blogs so it’ll be available regardless which computer I’m using.

    1. David,
      you’ll have more effective conversations if you quit posing rhetorical questions while expecting them to be answered.
      If you have a point to make, go ahead and make it.

  2. Not a rhetorical question. Just to be certain that I understand your position.

    So, assuming that the answer is yes, this suggests that the only evidence that is relevant would be evidence for the specific God named Jesus. Evidence for a resurrection, evidence that Jesus died for our sins, evidence that we must worship the specific God named Jesus, that we must ask Jesus, specifically, to forgive our sins, etc.


    1. You’re free to ‘test’/check evidence for other gods if you wish. See how they measure up against Jesus’ claim.

      1. You’ve missed the point. I’m not interested in the evidence for other gods.

        I’m saying that the evidence that would be relevant if one wishes to know the Father and go to Heaven would be evidence that specifically points to to the specific god, Jesus Christ.

        Is this not so? We need to focus on the evidence that specifically concerns Jesus, correct?

  3. Ok, good. We have an understanding.

    So, next, we have to see what evidence is available with respect to the specific god named Jesus Christ. I know about the textual evidence, the effect on people after they hear about Jesus…what am I missing? What additional evidence do we have?

    1. His very existence, His death, Most Important Evidence -His resurrection, Eyewitnesses, individual experiences,…

  4. And how do we know of his existence, his resurrections, eyewitnesses, etc.? It’s through the ancient texts, correct?

      1. To have an individual experience, you have to know that Jesus exists, right? So, the individual experience requires knowledge derived from the the texts that describe Jesus. You might read the text yourself or you might learn of their content from someone who read the texts, but one way or another, your knowledge of Jesus connects back to the texts. How else could you know that Jesus died for your sins or anything else that is specific to the particular god named Jesus?

      2. No.
        There are people who’ve had experiences who did not know nor ever heard of Jesus.
        What they had was a humble heart that called out to God and said – “I know there is a God/ruler of this universe, but I don’t know who You are, please reveal Yourself to me.

        Also, obviously, before anything was ever written down (text) God was revealing Himself to mankind.

        With regards to the latter part of your statement. In any relationship, you do not know everything in one day. You both grow in knowledge daily.
        So someone who’s never heard of Jesus or doesn’t know Him…once God reveals Himself to that seeker, that person can continue to pursue further knowledge/relationship etc.
        This is just one of many ways things can play out. It would be foolish to limit God to my very limited thinking.

      3. Earlier in the conservation, you agreed that the evidence that was relevant here was the evidence for the specific God named Jesus. Having a vague feeling that there is a “ruler of the univers” is not evidence of a specific God named Jesus. It appears that you wish to retreat from your original position.

        Having a feeling that ther is a ruler of the universe has led people to create a wide range of belief systems. But unless one has some connection to the texts which describe the life of Jesus, one does not then magically gain knowledge about the specifics of Jesus dying for one’s sins. No one who has not had access to the texts has knowable of the specific God named Jesus. And the only way to the Father is through Jesus, specifically. If I know that there is a ruler of the universe, and his name is Allah or Zeus, then I don’t go to Heaven, right?

      4. David, the fact that you have to make a deliberate and unfruitful attempt to reduce the truth that every single living human being has an intuitive knowledge of God to a “vague feeling” is quite telling.
        You can use that lie to deceive yourself but it will not work.

        Use the words I use, if you must, but do not change my words to give a less clear or vague meaning of what I said.

        I’ll repeat so there’s no misunderstanding.
        Every person alive has a knowledge of God. God made sure of it.

        So your inability to recognize God’s creation, His power, etc. doesn’t speak well for the abilities He’s blessed you with.
        Your little excuse of “vague feeling” is just not good enough.
        Back to the drawing board for you. Though I’ll warn you, you’re simply wasting your time.

        Once one comes to a knowledge of Jesus (if they weren’t privy to the text before) and want to pursue further relationship with Him, then they’ll know Him through the written Word [the text].

        People as you put it “having a feeling” that there is a ruler of the universe and creating belief systems is testament to the very truth that all human beings have a knowledge that there is a God.

        Man devising different methods of getting back to God shows the deep failures of past generations to instill Godliness and righteousness and identity into their descendants.

        Yes David, In the past God spoke to our ancestors in many different ways through prophets.
        But in these last days He speaks to us through His Son. He made His Son responsible for everything.
        Reiterating, (so you don’t throw false accusations my way)… so the only way to the Father is through the Son – Christ Jesus.
        And if we wish to have meaningful relationship with the Son we begin by reading his word.
        Eternal life is knowing God. We know God through His written word (scripture), His living Word (Christ Jesus) and the guidance and teachings of His Holy Spirit.

        If you David know that Allah or Zeus is the creator [ruler] of the universe, then you go their ‘heaven’ or whatever it is they’ve promised you.

      5. You say everyone has knowledge of God. Whatever we call this knowledge is irrelevant, but your overreaction to my use of the phrase “vague feeling” is quite informative. Honestly, who cares what we call this? And how do you know what God has or has not done?

        Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not it’s true that everyone has knowledge of God, it is clear that knowledge of God is not synonymous with knowledge of Jesus. Knowledge of an entity that we’ll call “God”, does not equal knowledge of Jesus. This is the point. And that’s a problem if Jesus is the only way out of eternal torture.

        Knowledge of the specific God named Jesus requires contact (in some form) with the text. We need contact with the texts to have a “relationship” with Jesus. So, if there is no contact with texts, then what do we have? No relationship with Jesus, no coming unto the Father, no Heaven for you?

      6. The reason you do not care about the specific meaning of words is because you’re a relativist/materialist/atheist, so words have no meaning for you.
        If you had the slightest notion about the importance of words you’d at least try to care.

        What you’re heading at is also quite telling. Because here you are, a person who obviously have heard of Jesus Christ yet have chosen to ignore the Son of God as though it were some simple matter.
        What makes you this bold, this fearless, to disregard the Only Son of God.
        Could it be, it’s because you have chosen to disregard the words of the Father Himself, choosing instead to fear yourself.
        Yet, you’re alluding to ‘caring’ for those who you believe have never heard of Jesus… what a bunch of crock.
        Why would you care whether or not they’ve heard of Jesus, when you’ve heard and treated that information with disdain.
        Forgive me for not being impressed.

        You’re wrong in this belief. Knowledge of God is indeed synonymous with knowledge of Jesus and vice versa.
        If you know Jesus, you know the Father. Everything Jesus does is what He saw the Father doing.

        This is why people like you try so hard to cast aspersions upon Jesus’ divinity. Because anyone who knows Jesus automatically knows God.
        And anyone who denies God’s existence has no choice but to deny the existence of Jesus.

        Your last sentence is also wrong. Many people have been in contact with Jesus and died in Christ without the benefit of the text.
        There are multitudes of people who identify as Christians who’ve never bothered to read the text.
        Then there are people like you, who have read the text and have no relationship. Proving it’s not the ‘reading of the text’ alone that ensures a relationship with God.

        Your biggest mistake is in believing the word is purely physical.

      7. Words have no meaning for me? Oh, nonsense. Now you’re just flailing, and starting down the road of personal attack. Take a deep breath.

        Sorry, but knowledge of an entity that we will call “God” is clearly not synonymous with knowledge of the specific God called Jesus.

        This is clear from an examination of the numerous belief systems in which people have concluded that there is a god or gods, but which also show not the slight hint of knowing about Jesus dying for sins, rising from the dead, etc. To know about Jesus, you must have contact with the historical accounts of Jesus. Folks without any contact with the texts do not have knowledge of Jesus, they don’t know about dying for sins or resurrections or the need to go through Jesus to get to the Father. They have no evidence for Jesus. That’s obvious from our knowledge of other cultures. That’s just reality.

        Who was been “in contact with Jesus” without knowledge derived from the texts? Who knows about the resurrection in the absence of contact with the texts? Can you give an example? Any evidence to support this? You said yourself that you need the text to have a “relationship” with Jesus.

        When did I say that I believe that the world is purely physical? The question is not…is the world purely physical? This question is…if there is a non-physical aspect of the world, what can we know about? The problem with the “spirit world” is that it can be anything you want it to be.

      8. If everyone knows God, and if everyone who knows God knows Jesus, then what is the point of the Great Commision? What is the good news that must be spread if everyone already know about Jesus?

      9. Knowing God exists and having a relationship with Him are two entirely different things David; as evidenced by your very life.

        Knowing Jesus exist and choosing to make Him your Lord and Savior [A Savior is one who saves you; A Lord is one you must obey] are also very different things.

        Also, your ability to deliberately rephrase one’s words incorrectly is stunning.
        I said everyone has a knowledge that there is a God; and 1 evidence is the fact that there are multitudes worshipping other gods due to failures of past ancestors (or whatever other reasons there may be).{Clearly, meaning/implying these people do not know the One True God, neither do they know Jesus].
        I don’t think I was being ambiguous.

        These are some of the people the gospel is being preached to.

        The Jews of His day did not reject Jesus based upon a misunderstanding of His claim to be God. They rejected Him because they chose not to believe Him.

        [He even told them:“Even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father”

        Still, even seeing His works, they chose to reject Him.

        The good news is being shared with you right now… day in day out… so far you have chosen to reject it.
        Why would the good news be shared with you if you “already know” Jesus.
        It’s been shared with you because you have continuously rejected Him.

      10. Saying that some have “knowledge of God” does not confirm or prove the claim that all have knowledge of God. All is everyone. That’s a lot of people to account for.

        Ok, knowing about Jesus and having a relationship with Jesus are two different things. But you can’t have a proper relationship without knowing about Jesus, and you can’t get to heaven without a relationship. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that all of those various god- or gods-worshiping cultures had the slightest clue about Jesus prior to contact with individuals with knowledge of Jesus from texts, historical documents, word of mouth, etc. Prior to this contact, individuals in these cultures did not know Jesus died for there sins, rose from the dead, and that Jesus is the only way to God the Father.

        Think about what motivated the big missionary movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. The goal was was to bring knowledge of Jesus to those who did not have knowledge of Jesus. It was the only way they could be saved.

        In short, information about Jesus and knowledge of Jesus is transmitted in the usual, boring physical way that all information about earthly events are transmitted. That means that millions have lived and died with no knowledge of Jesus. No knowledge, no relationship, no Heaven.

        And maybe the Jews of Jesus’ day rejected him because they could see very clearly that he was not the Messiah or God or anything close to these things. Maybe they rejected him because he didn’t fit the prophesies and didn’t actually rise from the dead. They were there. They had access to far more evidence than we do. And they rejected him. Seems unlikely that it was because they “chose not to believe.”

      11. David, it seems this conversation cannot move forward because you believe I must agree with you 100%.

        Tell me, before the NT became text, how did people know of Jesus.

        Many people have died shortly after accepting Jesus as their righteous, Lord & Savior and so never had time to establish an intimate /or proper relationship with Him.

        There are countless Christians who do not have a proper/intimate relationship with Jesus (for various reasons)
        This does not mean these people aren’t saved. It just means they do not have a close and personal relationship with Jesus, the results of which can be not knowing one’s full identity in Christ – this just means, not knowing all the benefits Jesus has given to us etc.

        It’s strange that you would make your self ultimate Judge (Almighty God) by declaring no knowledge, no relationship, no heaven.

        With regards to your last paragraph… what about the ones that believed. Weren’t they subject to the very same evidences as the ones who chose not to believe.
        See David, it always comes back to individual choice.
        Choose life David.

      12. I not sure that you are following what I was saying, perhaps because of the way I phrased things when I shortened what I was saying to “no knowledge, no relationship, no heaven.”

        Let me try again. What I’m trying to say is that “coming unto the Father” through Jesus would seem to require knowledge of the specific God named Jesus (knowledge of dying for sins, resurrections, the need to worship Jesus, etc.) Coming unto the Father through Jesus is a prerequisite for admission into Heaven, regardless of whether we call this a “relationship” or not. And this prerequisite cannot be met without knowledge of Jesus. In fact, the equation can be simplified to “no knowledge of Jesus, no Heaven.”

        However, knowledge of the specific God named Jesus requires access to information which is transmitted from original witnesses and texts to other human beings by oral and written communications. This is the evidence for the specific God named Jesus. The “personal experiences” that you have referenced follow the aquisition of knowledge of Jesus by the usual means (human to human communication), and so the essential evidence is still the texts.

        There’s no evidence that anyone learns about the specific God named Jesus in any other way other than by written or oral communications with other humans. God(s)-worshiping cultures with no knowledge of Jesus via contact with Jesus-knowledgable people do not worship Jesus. They don’t know about Jesus. This observation is the driving force behind the Great Commission and later missionary efforts. To know about Jesus, a human being must tell you about Jesus.

        But this takes time. So millions have lived and died without knowledge of Jesus. No knowledge, no Heaven. Unless, of course, one can come unto the Father by means other than the Son.

        (I not declaring myself the ultimate. I’m just following the words to their logical conclusion.)

        With respect to the Jews in Jerusalem in Jesus’ day, did those who believed have similar evidence as those who didn’t believe? Possibly, but unfortunately, we we really don’t have the documentation needed to determine who had what evidence and how many chose to believe or not believe. The absence of any contemporaneous accounts of the events in question has always been an issue.

        The big problem is that the resurrection of a Messiah executed by the Romans should have blown the lid off Jerusalem. But it didn’t. That suggests that the vast majority did not believe, despite the occurrence of the greatest event in human history and despite the hypothesized evidence. And that suggests that the event didn’t actually happen. (Plus, there’s the problem of unfulfilled prophesies.)

        To your final point, I find it difficult to choose something that isn’t true. And only a sadist would create a system in which a wrong choice means eternal torture.

      13. Those who have died, never hearing of Jesus did not die rejecting Him.
        Also, since I am not God, I have no clue what happens in those moments before their spirits are separated from their bodies.

        It’s odd that here you are in the 21st century giving your opinion on what you think would have been the most likely scenario 2000 years ago.
        Thanks for the smile.

        Significant events happen daily globally that you never hear a pip-squeak about. Does that mean they never happened because they never made your major and minor media.

        So what if the vast majority do not believe. Is truth based upon majority consensus?

        It’s only 21st century pseudo-intellectuals who’ve been claiming the resurrection didn’t happen.

        As said before, I have no interest in a back and forth of evidence versus your conjecture and suppositions.
        Let this sit in your mind – only a foolish person throws away their owners manual in favor of the conjecture and supposition of those who cannot tell the truth from a lie.

        You’re right… and it shows just how stupid mankind is.
        God created a perfect system. Mankind in their foolishness embraced and acted upon a lie from the enemy [just as you are currently doing].
        God could have left us to our own choosing but He did not.

        Your last sentence is juvenile and laughable.
        You’re going over all the roadblocks God has placed in your path, to prevent you from keeping the devil as your master; yet you’re barreling over everyone all the while screaming He’s sadistic. How foolish.

      14. I also want to ask what you guys mean by “eternal torture” anyway.

        I’ve found those who claim not to believe in Yahweh Elohim to be the most fearful, especially when speaking of ‘eternal torture.’
        Seems to me they’re tortured right now.
        When you know that someone loves you, you never have need to be fearful/afraid of them or what they might do to you.

      15. What does “eternal torture” mean? It mean what it says it means in the Bible.

        The resurrection is not a “significant event.” It’s the greatest event in the history of the world, right? Well, I can see how this might have been over-looked by the residents of the city in which it occurred.

        I believe you have now confirmed that one can come unto the Father by means other than the Son. One doesn’t have to know the Son after all. Thanks for showing that the Bible contains errors.

        Since you’ve now moved on to dribbling out a stream of insults, I suspect that you really do get my points. Good. Can’t ask for much more than that.

      16. Based on our conversation, this is what you claim to have gotten from it:
        “I believe you have now confirmed that one can come unto the Father by means other than the Son. One doesn’t have to know the Son after all. Thanks for showing that the Bible contains errors.”

        And you cannot see why others would view your reasoning and understanding as faulty. hmm.

        It makes sense why you wouldn’t see the resurrection as a significant event.

        What you’ve deliberately and incorrectly claimed I’ve said is in direct opposition to what I have on my sidebar.
        Jesus – I AM the way; I AM the truth; I AM the life.
        So much for relying on your own understanding of things David.

      17. Regarding “significant event,” I thin youk misunderstood, but then again, I should have been clearer in my writing.

        I’m not saying that the resurrection would not have been a significant event. Yes, it would been a significant event. What I was trying to say was that the resurrection was not just or not merely a “significant event.” It would have been way, way more than that, and so it should be expected to have an immediately enormous impact. No one in the area would have missed it. Jerusalem would have exploded.

        As to my reasoning. You said “those who died, never hearing of Jesus, did not reject him.” Can such individual come onto the Father and enter Heaven?

      18. …How does one go through the Son and possess the way, the truth and the light if one never knew the Son?

      19. I think when you make these statements you should clarify whether you mean:
        hearing of Jesus but didn’t seek to know Him.
        or never ever having heard of Jesus.

      20. I agree it gets tiresome after a while – the deliberate and incorrect rephrasing of one’s words; having to re-correct etc. so the conversation never moves forward.
        Which I guess is the whole idea, since a genuine search for truth or even the need to have a genuine conversation is not there.
        It’s all about wanting to win an empty argument.

      21. No need to apologize James.
        When we choose not to respond – they accuse us of all kinds of nonsense.
        When we do respond, it does essentially amount to a waste of time, because they keep repeating and reframing the same question hoping to elicit the response that they want.
        The fact they cannot even see this much less acknowledge it, is even more telling.

        I reply when I feel like it, and when I see that there’s no interest to learn anything/ move the discussion forward; – only the desire to keep repeating uninformed information that has been corrected numerous times… I keep silent.

        A great holiday weekend to you and family.

      22. I’m thinking in the context of cultures with no contact with anyone who ever heard of Jesus. So, I mean “never ever having heard of Jesus.”

      23. Ok.
        My response is the same. 3 fold.

        1. I would be more concerned for the person who has heard and has not believed.

        2. No one knows what transpires in the moments before a persons spirit is separated from their bodies.

        3. God is a Righteous Judge. He will do right.

        {this is what my very limited thinking can come up with right now.

        I’m learning not to limit God to my way of thinking.

      24. I agree completely that one should hesitate to claim to know the mind of God.

        But you have the Bible. You have the verse on your sidebar.

        Oh, well. Guess we’ll have to leave this as one of those mysteries.

      25. Hey James, as long as you’re not hiding behind your ability to moderate and delete comments on your blog, could you be more specific?

        What exactly was convoluted here? What exactly was unclear? What exactly didn’t make sense? How and why are my arguments here incorrect? Support your argument. I’d be glad to explain anything I’ve said in more detail.

        Yeah, I’ve been banned, but not by everyone. There are some who can handle a different point of view. (For example, good old IB has more guts than all you boys combined.). Also, I don’t re-word. And I’m not trying to frustrate and annoy.

        What I try to do is point the implications and logical conclusions which follow from certain positions. I think it important to really think about whether or not a given position is really well supported. In others, I’m ask you to think about it. I understand that this make some people uncomfortable.

      26. I suppose it is too much to ask for a specific example of “uninformed information that has been corrected numerous times? Just one will do. You know, just a little something to support your statement? Something to support your words?

        Well, I probably ask too much. Happy holidays!

      27. Hi David,
        It’s not too much to ask for a specific example at all.

        We’ve been speaking on “prayer” for a couple/few days, and based on your last comment to me, which I began responding to then decided against because I realized it made no difference how many times I said things like:
        prayer is simply communication
        prayer is not a substitute for speaking the word of God
        It wasn’t lack of prayer; or too much praying…. a person can pray all they want, it will be of no effect because it’s falling on barren ground etc.

        You still want to attribute healing to praying and being in God’s favor.

        Perhaps you might want to reciprocate and point out where in the article I linked, there are inaccuracies.

        Thank you, and
        Happy Holidays to you as well!

      28. Ok, I think I understand what you are saying about prayer.

        However, what genuinely confuses me is that you said that healings occurred that would not have occurred in the absence of prayer. A person that would not have been healed in the absence of Lake’s prayers was healed because Lake prayed. I don’t think I’m rewording here, I think that this is what you said. Now, that would seem to rather strongly link the healing to the praying. What else could it be?

        More broadly, do people in a prayed for group experience higher survival rates than people in unprayed for groups? If so, why is there a higher survival in the one group versus the other? If it’s not the praying, then what is happening here? Why is there a difference in survival? If it’s not prayer and it’s not God’s favor, then what is it?

        I’ll take a look at your links.

      29. “what genuinely confuses me is that you said that healings occurred that would not have occurred in the absence of prayer”

        Remember me saying that your approach is very one dimensional.
        The key thing to realize is that Jesus is the healer, not our faith, not our prayer. It was Jesus who was beaten to a pulp for our healing.
        So when we look to our great faith/prayer; or our little faith/prayer; or our lack of faith/prayer we’re focusing on the wrong thing.

        Once Lake understood that what he was taught before was wrong; that God is still the healer, and ‘the day of miracle was not past’; that sickness was oppression from the devil; that one of the ways Jesus did God’s will was by destroying the works of the devil; he now knew sicknesses and diseases were not to be tolerated, but to be hated and their hold over an individual destroyed.

        “Now, that would seem to rather strongly link the healing to the praying. What else could it be?”
        David, death and life are in the power of our tongue/words.
        The person who believes this and uses their words to speak death to cancer and health and wholeness to those who need it will have different results than the person who does not believe this and thinks and speaks death because that’s all they’re seeing and that’s all they’re believing.

        If I may use your terms, the healing would be linked to using your words to speak what Jesus says and trusting Him to honor His words.

        I believe I mentioned above, that one does not necessarily have to ‘pray’ for a person. One can simply lay hands on the person, and healing is manifested. [The branch of a tree gets it’s sustenance and life from the vine… in like manner.. the person who is in Christ, is attached to His life, and in laying on of hands, it’s His life-force they’re imparting.]

        “Why is there a difference in survival? If it’s not prayer and it’s not God’s favor, then what is it?”

        The difference is due to who you’re looking at as the healer: Jesus, your prayer, your faith, the amount of people you have praying for you; etc.

        Do you find it ‘ironic’ that the symbol for medicine or medical one/two snakes on a pole.

        When God first revealed Himself as Jehovah Rapha (I AM your healer); He told Moses to hang a snake on a pole. Those who looked at it were healed. Those who took their eyes off it to look around them or at their circumstances died.
        Never lose sight of the fact that Christ Jesus is our healer. It’s Him on a pole/the cross that we look to; focus on; and behold, “for Christ died and Himself took our infirmities and bear our sicknesses.”


      30. Ok, now I’m going to take this slowly, because I don’t want to be accused of rewording anything. Im really trying to follow what you are saying. I’m sure you’ll let me know if I get this wrong.

        So, first, one has to believe or have faith in certain ideas about disease, healing and the power of Jesus. For example, one trusts in Jesus, believes that Jesus is the healer and has power over disease.

        Then, one takes some action which could be words or prayers or laying on of hands. Could be many things, but regardless, one does something to demonstrate one’s faith and/or channel the power of Jesus.

        Finally, it Jesus that then takes the action that produces the physical healing. For example, it is through a healing act of Jesus that a tumor disappears. Jesus does the healing, Jesus provides or causes the physical change in the human.

        How’s that? Am I getting closer?

      31. Yes, you’re getting closer.
        [For clarity, I cannot speak exactly to how healing is manifested…]
        but I believe you’ve gotten one of the most important aspect: – some action must be taken.

        Recall what I said above that I’ve also found to be true: ‘it’s easier to act myself into believing than to believe myself into acting’… In words you’re familiar with “just do it”!

      32. Footnote: The use of snakes on a pole to symbolize medicine or a medical doctor is derived from traditons and cults associated with the Greek god of healing, Asclepius. I don’t think it has much to do with Moses.

      33. Still not sure what you mean about counterfeiting. The Greeks developed their own symbols and meanings for their own particular reasons. There’s nothing counterfeit here. I don’t follow what you are saying here.

      34. Ok, I’m getting closer. Anything wrong about what I said? Anything improperly reworded? Anything uninformed? Just want to be sure.

      35. David, the part I have some misgivings about is this line:
        Finally, it [is] Jesus that then takes the action that produces the physical healing…

        The reason for my wariness with that type of wording is this:
        Jesus paid for our salvation and our healing 2000 years ago.
        A person who receives salvation today, did not require Jesus to go back to the cross to do something He already accomplished 2000 years ago. Today is when they’re receiving what He’s already done.
        The same applies for healing and really everything else. This was all accomplished 2000 years ago.
        When we receive it/when it’s manifested is not when it was done.

      36. I think I follow what you saying. However, whether the healing is something that is the result of something that Jesus is doing today or whether it’s due to something that was done 2000 years ago, I believe you are saying that the healing is something received from Jesus and/or it is the result of some act of Jesus. Could be an act that occurred 2000 years ago, but it’s still, it requires or required an act of Jesus. Yes?

      37. Ok, so in the case of healings, (1) we have a tangible, material, physical benefit (2) that is recieved while we are on Earth (3) from Jesus (acting at some point in time, now or in the past) (4) by those who trust or believe in Jesus and who perform some appropriate act (words, prayers, laying on of hands).

        Still good? Any problematic rewording? I’ve numbered these so that you can make correction but the numbers.

      38. 1-3 is correct.
        4: the recipient of healing does not have to believe/trust in Jesus.

      39. Let me explain what I mean @ #4.

        A person who doesn’t believe that Jesus can heal them, especially true for unbelievers/non-Christians can and will receive healing because the person speaking/commanding life/healing to them overrides their unbelief.

        Let me give you an example:
        A believer goes up to an unbeliever who has some need – in this case need for healing for *whatever*.
        Upon receiving healing, that same unbeliever can be used to speak healing over another unbeliever, because Jesus honors His words and spiritual laws work, regardless of who uses them (just like physical laws).

      40. Ok, the recipient doesn’t have to believe, but the person speaking over the sick or laying hands on the sick must believe and trust. Someone involved in the healing event must believe and trust. Yes?

      41. Ok, given what has been agreed upon, we can divide sick people into two groups.

        In the first group, we have sick people who know someone who trusts and believes in Jesus and who understands what must be done to receive a healing by an act of Jesus.

        In the second group, the sick people don’t know anyone who trusts, believes, understands what must be done. Could be that this is due to rejection of Jesus, could be that this is due to a total lack of knowledge of Jesus as a result of cultural isolation, could that they don’t have any friends. Regardless of the reason, they don’t know anyone who trusts, believes or understands what is required for a healing.

        All people fall into one of these two groups. You either know someone with faith and understanding or you don’t. Yes?

      42. Perhaps…
        I use that term because there are far more Christians who do not believe healing is for today, than those who believe and know that God hasn’t changed and neither can His word.
        So, for example a person in need may go to one who “has faith”[Christian, but does not believe healing is for all; and there are also some Christians who believe God puts sickness on them or others to teach them a lesson- weird but true (I’ve seen it)… so the reality is I wouldn’t recommend going to any of these persons though I cannot say with 100% certainty what the outcome will be; but I think there is a high probability, the sick will walk away and remain the same the same way they came).

        The reality is, the word works for all. But just like going to the best physician (one who has been practicing for a while), I’d say if a person isn’t confident or comfortable speaking over themselves, then go to those who’ve been doing this for a while or trained under someone who has been doing this for a while.

        There’s much more to this than what we’re discussing and I probably know less than 1% of what is to be known.

      43. Yes, it’s interesting that Christians disagree about so many things. But to get to the main event…

        I understand that it’s your view that the Word works for all. However, in practice, if one is sick, you either know people who believe, trust and understand what needs to be done to receive a healing or you don’t know such people. To the list of reasons you don’t know such people, perhaps we could add that maybe the Christians that you know don’t believe in healing.

        So we have one group who will receive a tangible, physical benefit by an act of Jesus, and we have one group that will not recieved that benefit. There might be several different reasons for why the second group doesn’t receive the benefit, but regardless, our first group recieves a benefit that the second group does not. And in at least some cases, those who do not receive the benefit would have had no way to access the Word due to cultural isolation.

        Anything inaccurate here?

      44. It no longer perplexes me that Christians disagree about “many things” because that is the nature of individuality.
        Even within strong marriages of many years, individuals still have differing views on some things.
        We miss the point if we believe we must be perfect. It’s only through the process of trusting and allowing Christ to mold us that we become perfected. In other words perfection is through long, rigorous process… but the beauty is to learn all you can through the processing. Hope that makes sense.

        Nothing inaccurate in what you’ve said.
        There are myriad of reasons why people do not receive, and I do not have the answers right now.

        For example: Smith Wigglesworth (who lived in from the 1859 up till relatively recently 1947) raised roughly 23 people from the dead and healed countless others.
        However, his daughter Alice who was born deaf, did not manifest a healing at all. And Smith who was healed of appendicitis, it took 6 years for him to manifest his healing from kidney stones.

        The point here is that, clearly Smith believed and even to this day has greater trust in Jesus than most other Christians, and even though his own daughter did not manifest a healing, Smith knew that Jesus was still the healer and used that knowledge to save countless others who were able to receive.

        To your last 2 sentences, whether it’s termed ‘cultural isolation’ it still boils down to lack of knowledge.

        Which is why it’s important for those who do know to disciple others – basically teach others what they know. A disciple is a learner. This is what we’re called to do… it was never about making converts.

      45. Yes, there are differences because people are individuals. But we’re not talking about a married couple arguing over where to go for dinner. We’re talking about what is true and what is not true. So when individuals differ, whose truth is the true truth?

        Ok, I understand that those who believe, trust and follow a certain protocol (words, prayers, laying of hands) will not always receive a healing. However, they will receive a healing by an act of Jesus on at least some occasions. At a minimum, you would claim that they have higher survival rates.

        In contrast those in the group in which the sick individual do not have access to those who believe, trust and follow a certain prorocol will never receive a healing. Or at a minimum, they will be healed at a lower rate. This holds even for those who lived in a time or place in which there was no knowledge of Jesus, and so these individuals would never have been able to access the healings available to the group with access to believers. This doesn’t seem entirely sporting to me.

        Now, if I give a tangible benefit to one group, but I don’t give it to another, couldn’t one conclude that I’m favoring one group over the other? Why or why not?

        (So some guy named Wigglesworth raised 23 people from the dead? Really? And you do understand that kidney stones pass and may never form again, even in atheists?)

      46. One more time, and I truly hope you get it: truth is independent of an individual. So individuals having differing views does not affect the truth. The truth is the standard against which everything else is measured.

        Your ‘snark’/sarcasm is duly noted for the last paragraph.

      47. Ok, truth is independent of the individual.

        However, this still does not solve the problem of how to identify who, if anyone, actually knows the truth. You said it yourself. We all have the same evidence, but we come to different conclusions based on our worldviews. So who’s right? Who has the truth? Does anyone have the truth? How can you tell?

        Saying truth is independent of the individual does not give us the answer to these questions. It doesn’t tell us whose truth is the true truth.

        Apologies for the sarcasm, but claiming to have raised 23 people from the dead is one truly extraordinary claim. I think it very unlikely that you would accept such a claim if I was the one who claimed to have raised 23 people from the dead. I don’t think it’s out of line to be skeptical in the face of such claims.

        Finally, any thoughts about the main event? I give something to one group but not to another, am I favoring the first group? Why or why not?

      48. Many have listened to Jesus and come to quite different conclusions about what is the truth. So who’s right? So who has the truth? How can you tell?

        And how do you know the Jesus has the truth? Simply declaring that Jesus has the truth doesn’t make it so. This is just your individual, subjective conclusion based on your individual, subjective worldview.

        And if I provide a benefit to one group but not another, am I favoring one group over another?

      49. It’s very simple David.
        Jesus is the truth. He has the truth. Those who want and need the truth go to Him and listen to Him.

        You do not believe Jesus is the truth; that’s your business. You will go to where you think the truth is.

        A benefit is provided for all. However, not all choose to receive it.
        There are also many who receive from God who never acknowledge His blessings; neither are they thankful. This doesn’t mean God isn’t giving to them; they’re incapable of receiving from Him, so they’ll label His gifts & blessings & favor as ‘luck’ ‘coincidence’ or attribute it to some other factor or person aside from God.

      50. Saying that Jesus is the truth doesn’t really address the points and questions that I’ve raised. Again, if two people listen to Jesus and come to different conclusions about what is the truth, then who has the truth?

        Further, how do you know that Jesus is the truth? I don’t mean this rhetorically. Seriously, how do you know this?

        As to the rest…

        The benefit is clearly not provided for all or survival rates would be the same in all groups. However, you’ve said that survival rates are not the same. If Jesus is providing equal benefits to both the believer and unbeliever groups, then survival rates would be equal, regardless of whether unbelievers credited Jesus or not. It wouldn’t matter if unbelievers called this coincidence or luck; survival rates would be the say. But they are not. So, the benefit is not provided to all.

        The benefit of healing is provided in response to process of trusting, believing and saying or doing certain things. It’s the believers who get the benefit. If this was not so, then there would be no point or no need for words, prayers, etc. But instead, one must take certain actions to get into the group which gets the higher survival rates.

        Now, you could say that the unbelievers have chosen to stay out of the group that recieves the benefits. Maybe they deserve what they get. But how does one make this choice if one has no knowledge of Jesus? Millions have never had the choice of joining the group receiving the healing benefits. So, for millions of people, access to the benefits has been a matter of when and where you were born, a matter of chance.

        What in the above is not accurate?

      51. David: “Saying Jesus is the truth doesn’t really address the points and questions that I’ve raised…”

        .Actually David, it absolutely does. Your inability to recognize the answer is your failure.
        2000 years ago, the question was asked of Jesus: “What is truth?”

        I have come to a knowledge of Truth.
        In answer to your question who is on the side of truth: obviously it’s the one whose conclusion is on the side of truth or neither if both conclusions are not on the side of truth.

        In response to your last paragraph, your insincerity is baffling. Let me explain.
        Here you are, having knowledge of Jesus, with no desire to act upon what you’ve heard so you can prove for yourself and be able to disciple someone who has never heard.
        Yet, you keep feigning “interest?” for those who have never heard of Jesus.

        What are you doing with what you have heard?

      52. Ok, I don’t really see any answers here, you just question my sincerity, so not much to respond to. You “have knowledge of the Truth.” A fallible human being with a subjective view of the world has decided that he has knowledge of the Truth.

        Well, good for you. Can’t very well argue with the Truth, so I suppose that settles that.

      53. David, you seem to be saying it’s impossible for any human being to know the truth. That’s a bunch of crock, because essentially you’re admitting that what you’ve just said cannot be true.

        I’m not sure in how many ways I can convey this.
        Truth is a person!
        I’ve settled this matter for myself already. You have not. That is fine. However, do not expect me to cast aside Truth for dubious, illogical, and irrational speculation. You’re more than welcome to do that as is your wont. Good for you.
        My goal is not to be deemed ‘acceptable’ by those who’ve given themselves over to a lie.

        No, you can argue with the Truth all you want; no one is stopping you. Know though that you’ll only end up like everyone else before you that did.

        Here’s a great article if you’re interested. If not, that’s fine. It’s for the benefit of anyone who comes across this thread and has an interest in knowing and obtaining Truth for themselves.

      54. There’s a difference between knowing something with a certain level of confidence, and knowing The Truth.

        The first, we can do. The second? I have my doubts for reason that I’ve tried to explain.

        Anyway, thanks for an interesting exchange.

      55. Well David, if you cannot know the truth, then everything you’ve said to me is not true.

        Knowing the Truth matters David!

        The article is long, but I hope you take the time to read it as it’s rooted in general knowledge, not just ‘the religious’.

        Thanks as well, and a great weekend to you.

      56. Sorry, one last note.

        You often used words like “dubious,” “irrational,” and “illogical.” But you never really explain why something was dubious or irrational or illogical. So, im afraid it’s not very convincing when you use these words.

      57. Don’t want to drag this out, but I don’t think that you need capital T, Absolute Truth to know that some things are likely to be so, including some of the “somethings” that I’ve said here.

        I did check out the link. If I understand correctly it says that Truth should correspond to reality. If that’s so, then I think we have problem with the claim that the Bible offers Truth or that Jesus is the Truth. I understand that you would disagree with this.

  5. Perhaps I have a closed mind, I don’t think so, but most of us are poor judges of how others see us.

    I don’t support insulting comments but I must admit sometimes I get frustrated and don’t react in as civil way as I would like to.

    I really bought into Christian theology. I accepted it lock stock and barrel. I never had any qualm calling myself a sinner who needed salvation. I still wish to some extent that Christianity was true. much of it I found appealing, except for Hell that is. The concept of Hell is one I found difficult to accept when I called myself a Christian.

    It was not a distaste of the theology that drew me away from faith, it was a realisation that the Bible could not be a divine book. Obviously people of faith will disagree with my conclusion. But given the threat Hell and eternal torture moving away from faith was not a step I took lightly. In fact I have spent the last 16 and a half months investigating the faith in the greatest detail. But you can’t make yourself believe.

    Even when I called myself a Christian I struggled with the first 11 chapters of the Bible, I concluded that perhaps they were a pious myth, but I struggled to accept it was actual history, when the evidence against them was so overwhelming. I know that groups like Answers in Genesis try to support the Biblical account, but I find their approach is not credible. What I mean by that is that their approach is like that of conspiracy theorists, they focus on the 5% of evidence that supports their view and in essence ignore the 95% of evidence that is contrary. They are not undertaking science rather they are simply trying to find holes in the science undertaken by others.

    My path out of faith I think started when I studied Christian history. I puzzled as I studied the history as to why it looked so much that the Church was a human not a divine entity. Anyway I think I have said enough.

    1. I believe in everything there must be balance. It’s like driving on the road… you go too far (left or right) and you end up in a ditch. I use this to say, having a closed mind to certain things is actually a great idea and quite beneficial. A person who is firmly closed off and totally unreceptive to the foolish idea that there is no God is doing themselves a favor.
      The only way that we can guard our hearts is to be closed off to the things that will damage our hearts. So in this sense I think being close minded is a good thing.

      One of the things I’ve come to realize is that religion &/theology is an extremely poor substitute for a true and meaningful relationship with Jesus; I’m speaking from experience.
      I remember the first time I stepped past my fear and feeling foolish to speak healing over someone. Both of us were stunned by what was happening before our eyes. A few minutes later, as I walked away, I simply said: “OMG! You are real!”

      Since then, I have experienced enough to know that God is who He says He is and that Christ Jesus is as real as you are. It’s for this reason I can regard all the meaningless debates as empty arguments.
      I’ve also had experiences where it seems God is silent, where I’ve learnt (still learning) to reassure my heart, by not forgetting the countless times He’s come thru for me. It’s not religion when one can dwell in peace in the midst of a storm. It’s relationship based on trust. I haven’t arrived, but I thank God I’ve already left.

      I agree and believe that if one imagines hell the way many preachers teach it, it’s a downright unsettling concept. The other day I was thinking, what if God allowed people who were totally unrepentant and rebellious into heaven – then it would no longer be heaven, it would be total hell.
      What’s a God to do Peter.

      There was a time I would have agreed with the statement ‘you cannot make yourself believe’… now I know better. It’s absolutely not true.
      Belief is a choice. Every one of us choose what we want to believe. Our lives go in the direction of our dominant thoughts. Evidenced by for example someone who has been told negative things their whole lives… if they choose to believe it, that’s the direction their lives will take. Said person’s life can be turn around just by speaking love, and positivity into it – but they must choose to believe the good things about themselves first.

      John G. Lake said something that seems weird but that totally works. He said, he’s found that it was easier for him to act himself into believing than to believe himself into acting. Basically, he acted the part until it became real to him. Others might reject this, but until I’ve found one who has had an effective life as he’s had, I’ll stick with his advice.

      Also speaking of Lake, I always found it strange that those who say prayer doesn’t work or that it’s been tested and found not to work have never heard of Lake much more to cite his work done with medical research institutions that tested these very things and found it does work.

      He was not a medical dr. but had greater/better results than the hospitals. One of the 2 hospitals in his area of Spokane, Washington closed because he got so many patients healed. He even allowed himself to be exposed to deadly viruses without the benefit of vaccination(s). These are documented, yet skeptics and deniers know nothing or at least seem not to know any of these facts. Lake lived in the early 1900’s.
      Why do you think that is… if people are genuinely seeking after truth.
      [I’ll address the rest later]

      1. Hi David.
        Faith (which is simple trust) is not a healer. Christ Jesus is the healer.
        Does Jesus (the Living Word heal) – you bet!

      2. I believe that we are arguing semantics with respect to the phrase “faith healing.” I assume that Lake believed that healings occurred which would not have occurred in the absence of his prayers?

  6. So, I have friends who pray for me, and you don’t. I live, you die.

    I would have thought that God might favor the friendless, but I guess, like humans, He prefers the popular ones.

    1. Well, Lake prayed for someone. That someone was healed when they would not have been healed in the absence of pray. God did the healing, but the healing does not occur without prayer

      So, odds of survival go up if someone prays for you, and the odds of survival are lower if no one prays for you. God is more likely to heal you if you have friends who pray for you. But if you are friendless, then God is less likely to intervene. You die. The person with friends lives.

      1. Prayer is simply communication. The exact same way that you and I are communicating right now.

        The reality is Jesus already provided for healing for people 2000 years ago… in the exact same way that He provided for salvation 2000 years ago. Meaning, if someone decides to make Jesus their Lord & Savior today, He is not going back to the cross today for them.
        He did it once, the work was totally

        The odds of survival go up when you have people praying who understands their authority in Christ. {much like a power of attorney.

        It’s better to have 1-2 people praying (for a person/anyone) who understands what prayer is (it’s not begging God to do something He’s already done) than to have 1000 people praying who are just throwing words out there and begging God and screaming at God because they don’t know the will of God.

  7. I think you may have missed the point.

    If you do NOT have people praying for, then your odds of survival are low. So God favors those with the right sort of friends over the friendless. I would have thought that it would the friendless who might get a break here.

    1. No, it’s not just about having someone pray for you.
      That’s why I said, a person can have 1000 people praying for them and it affects nothing.
      Someone else can have just 1 person lay hands on them – no words- and they’ll be healed.

      David, I seriously hope you’re taking note and check out these things yourself.

      For example:
      Someone will pray “O God, please heal M; I beg you. Your will be done…” {this is a terrible prayer.

      Another person may pray: insert name of sickness, I command you to go in Jesus’ name.
      Or as I said above, no words at all. Simple touch.

      God favors everyone. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed of the devil.
      sickness is oppression of the devil; not of God.
      healing is a good thing
      Do what God tells you to do, and you’ll see that God favors and honors His word.
      He is no respecter of people (as men are).

      1. i didn’t say it was just about having someone pray for you. But will prayer change the odds or not?

        I believe that you started by agreeing that Lake believed that healings occurred which would not have occurred in the absence of his prayers. This is what Lake believed.

        Now, is this something that you also believe?

      2. Ok, good.

        So, the person who is prayed for has better odds of survival than the person who is not prayed for. And survival is a function of the intervention of God. God takes the action in response to the prayers that alter the outcome.

        As a result of God’s intervention, one lives and one dies. So, God is favoring the friended and prayed for over the friendless and unprayed for.


      3. Yes David,{this is only to the first sentence, as you’re notorious for grossly rephrasing what I say to fit your agenda].
        when the dr. says a person is going to die, that person has a better chance of surviving if they have someone who knows how to speak forth the word of God over them.

        Your interpretation is quite incorrect though. Your approach is very one dimensional and unscriptural.

        Prayer is not a substitute for speaking the word of God.

        Did you read the link I attached for Peter.
        If you did, one of the things you’d notice is that Lake was one of 16 children and by the time he was a young man, 8 of his siblings had died, and 4 were dying. There was always death in his household.

        It was not lack of praying – ie. they ‘prayed’ but his 8 siblings still died. They ‘prayed’ but his 4 siblings and young wife were at deaths door until “1 Godly minister, great enough and true enough to God to proclaim the whole truth of God” was when “the truth/the light/ the breakthrough came” for Lake.

        I was hoping for something to convey what prayer is like: this came my way today.
        Prayer is good. Not against prayer (it’s like water and fertilizer); but if you haven’t planted the seed of God’s Word, you can water & fertilize this barren ground all you want to and never produce results.”

        It’s all about the Word David. God favors, honors and confirms His Word. It’s for you to plant that word in your heart and speak it forth boldly -regardless of ridicule from those around.
        “It does you [and those around you] no good if you know what the word says but refuse to speak it/do not speak it.”
        When you know the word works, you won’t care what mockers and scoffers and doubters have to say.

      4. If the answer to the first sentence is yes, then it logically follows that God is favoring one catagory of humans over another. If prayed for humans have a greater survival rate, then prayed for human are favored over unprayed for humans. It’s a simple, obvious conclusion derived from the data.

        Spin this as you wish; it doesn’t make my conclusion incorrect. Call this “confirming the word of God” if you like, but that doesn’t change the conclusion that the observable outcome shows that God favors the friended and prayed for over the unfriendly.

        For the record, I seriously doubt if God lifted a celestial finger to save anyone in Lake’s family. But you think he did. So, why avoid the obvious conclusions that follow from your beliefs?

      5. No need for spin, your reasoning is simple very illogical and very wrong.
        There aren’t more than one category of human beings.
        Jesus died for the entire world – not just some people… all. Healing is for all.

        No one can earn or qualify themselves for salvation nor healing. {So your reasoning is simply misinformed and very wrong.

        Healing and Salvation are both part of the atonement of Christ. This means, when a person receives salvation – that’s not the moment Christ died for their salvation. He did 2000 years ago. They’re just now receiving it. The same is true for healing.

        “God has already placed His healing power within us, and it is now under our authority. It isn’t up to God to determine who receives healing; it’s up to us!”

        It matters not whether you believe Lake’s story. Your lack of belief doesn’t change the truth. It only affects what you can or cannot allow yourself to receive, that’s all.
        The part you’ve missed that I wanted you to ponder was what made the difference after his understanding of the nature of sickness and disease.

      6. Not illogical. Not wrong.

        Group A has a higher survival rate than Group B. This difference is a result of the intervention of God. Group A received something from God that Group B did not. Group A received goodies that Group B did not. Group A is favored over Group B.

        If healing is for all, then there should be no difference in survival rates between A and B.

        If individuals are doing something to alter survival rates, or if it’s up to us instead of God, then the individuals in Group A are indeed “earning” their healings by their actions. And we back to God favoring those with praying friends, because only those with praying friends get the goodies.

        What in the above is incorrect? Be specific.

        What made the difference? Well, first, your assuming that Lake’s account is accurate. There is evidence that at least parts of Lake’s autobiography are inaccurate. If accurate, then the differences in survival are likely due to random chance and/or due to the severities of the illnesses in the various cases.

        Consider that the high mortality rates in Lake’s family were typical of the times in which he lived. And these mortality rates had been largely unchanged for centuries, regardless of how people had prayed. What finally changed mortality rates in the 1900s was our new understanding of the natural, physical causes of disease, not a change in the way we prayed.

    1. Is this your way of supporting your argument? Your offer words, but no explaination or support for your position. No wonder you have delete comments.

      1. Ah, I see. James speaks, and it is so. I can see while fundamentalism appeals to you. No thinking required.

      2. David,

        The other day over at Wally’s place you said you could be convinced God existed if he sat on your couch and turned your TV into a burning bush. I read the entire exchange and this was not lighthearted humor. Face it David, you are not a serious person, we can all see it.

      3. Sorry, you don’t know me. And apparently, you didn’t understand what I said in the thread at Wally’s place.

        In any event, I see that you still do not wish to support your claims about convolution and lack of clarity. Just more of the Word of James. Ad hominem and words without substance or support.

  8. Peter,

    You do support insulting comments. Last I knew you absolutely condone Ark and Mike, two of the most insulting bloggers I have ever come accross.

    I hear from my readers that you still spend a significant amount of your time talking about me, Wally, CS…behind our backs.

    Get over yourself and stop acting as if you’re some sort of victim.


    1. Um, James? I doubt if Peter is still checking this post. If you wish to speak to Peter, maybe you should go to where you know you can find him.

      1. You don’t care if he reads it or not? Then why directly address comments to him? Who were these comments for? Just trying to impress The Ancients?

        The evidence suggests that you must care a little. Or maybe you just did it for grins? Which suggests…you’re not a serious person? Hmm.

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s