Eucharistic Shenaninigans

[Floyd]

@Cup o Joe

Is the big bang theory universal? yes. the word Catholic comes from greek, it means universal. Therefore the big bang theory is Catholic.

Yeah, that really doesn’t make much sense. Are you being deliberately ignorant and trolling or does that actually form some sort of logic in your head? I would advise you to think about what you’ve put.

@MaxTheLimit

I wouldn’t say it is at all universal that religion teaches kindness, and generosity. I know for a fact it’s not universal in teaching racial sensitivity, and a non prejudiced view. You can argue modern Christianity does, but not much beyond that.

Fair point. I’m not exactly well-read in the detailed teachings of other religions, but on the whole the major religions - Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Christianity teach that you should do good deeds to your fellow man. Was there a specific sect or denomination that you were thinking of that doesn’t teach kindness and generosity?

Is it worth being part of a religion when you find it morally reprehensible at times?

Yes, when I find it to be morally outstanding for the majority of the time.

I wouldn’t say melodramatic. I would say…direct. If that bit of christian mythology were to be taken as a metaphor, what could we glean from it? God is spiteful - Why else would he punish man for something beyond his comprehension?
Knowledge is evil - The serpent is depicted as evil. All the serpent promises is knowledge. That is what is gained.
God does not want humans to be good - Asking humans to be good but fail to give them the ability to know what that means? Stacking the deck, I would say.
Man is still not immortal, and still doesn’t exist in eden. I could sure use eternal bliss.

I think you might be missing the point a bit - man disobeyed God when he was tempted by the serpent. He didn’t have to know that it was wrong to do it, but he disobeyed. A child might disobey when they don’t fully understand the ramifications of their actions but they do it anyway. The point of the story is that it symbolises man’s flaws and inherent weaknesses. I don’t know how much sway the Church holds by the story or where the story came from in fact. I’m fairly sure there’s some key thing missing from my understanding of it, as I haven’t read that story in a while.
I see no reason to think that God doesn’t want us to be good. He gave us the ability to see right from wrong according to the Bible. Being on earth, a planet as shitty and awful as it is, is a pretty apt test for our perception of right and wrong. Or do you mean in Eden?
I don’t know what to make of the Garden of Eden story. It’s a nice idea, but it would seem strange that God would make something that is inherently flawed unless he had that idea from the start. But the whole point of paradise is that it is our reward. I like the idea of a test myself.

If you can find happiness elsewhere, why would you not chose a way less fraught with logical paradox?

Because, in my experience, this is the only sort of happiness to me that has any sort of permanence to it. I’m talking more about the acts that come from the teachings of the religion. I don’t necessarily get the same amount of happiness from going to church, but it helps. I see where you’re going with this, but as I’ve said before, there is no logical paradox in the main teaching of the faith - loving your neighbour and your enemy as yourself makes complete sense to me, and I like the idea of setting an example. The idea of a God is a more difficult one, but it’s an idea that I’m prepared to face when I’m ready. I can find happiness in doing the same sort of thing but without religion, such as volunteer work abroad, but religion to me centralises my beliefs and gives me perspective on what I do in life.
I can’t say that I agree with people who think that religious people do good in their lives out of a selfish act of wanting to get to heaven. That doesn’t quite work out - the idea of heaven is so infinitely far away that the act we do in our life is completely separated from the idea of the reward. You do a good deed because it makes you feel good, because it is right.

The more I read here, it seems your not religious at all though. It seems your not even overly spiritual. It seems like you are some kind of…moralist. Questioning the morals of our species, and the guidelines we use to conduct ourselves. Since you’ve looked so much into the moral teachings of gods teachings, have you also looked into the moral theology of the great human thinkers? I think you might find that some of gods teachings can also be found in human theology born from creatures capable of love and compassion.

Yeah, maybe I am more of a moralist. I see no problem with that though. The rest can come later. As I’ve said, I’m not the perfect candidate for your questions because I would be the first to admit that I’m not overly religious. My faith in God isn’t exactly strong.
I try to read philosophy as a sort of hobby. I’ve read parts of Locke, Rousseau, Nietchze, Machiavelli and C.S Lewis. I find it interesting, but I also find it hard to draw any satisfying conclusions from them. I particularly like Locke and Lewis however, as I tend to agree with them. I do agree though, that God’s teachings can be found there as well. Out of interest, what philosophy do you read and enjoy? Have they had a profound effect on your life?

[MaxTheLimit]

@Floyd

Fair point. I’m not exactly well-read in the detailed teachings of other religions, but on the whole the major religions - Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Christianity teach that you should do good deeds to your fellow man. Was there a specific sect or denomination that you were thinking of that doesn’t teach kindness and generosity?

It’s not as common in modern widely practiced faiths. Logically, such faith don’t adapt to the modern world well. The point being that a faith system isn’t really a sure path to discovering virtues.

@Floyd

Yes, when I find it to be morally outstanding for the majority of the time.

Since nothing is forced on you, wouldn’t it make more sense where YOU determine what suits you best? Personally, I think it would be more satisfying to be able to look at my beliefs as a whole and feel good about them as a whole.

@Floyd

I think you might be missing the point a bit - man disobeyed God when he was tempted by the serpent. He didn’t have to know that it was wrong to do it, but he disobeyed. A child might disobey when they don’t fully understand the ramifications of their actions but they do it anyway. The point of the story is that it symbolises man’s flaws and inherent weaknesses. I don’t know how much sway the Church holds by the story or where the story came from in fact. I’m fairly sure there’s some key thing missing from my understanding of it, as I haven’t read that story in a while.
I see no reason to think that God doesn’t want us to be good. He gave us the ability to see right from wrong according to the Bible. Being on earth, a planet as shitty and awful as it is, is a pretty apt test for our perception of right and wrong. Or do you mean in Eden?
I don’t know what to make of the Garden of Eden story. It’s a nice idea, but it would seem strange that God would make something that is inherently flawed unless he had that idea from the start. But the whole point of paradise is that it is our reward. I like the idea of a test myself.

Actually I think the point here is that, to man, there simply is no concept of right or wrong. To obey or disobey god means little to man at the time, because he simply has no concept of it. It’s not that he doesn’t understand it, it’s that the very concept doesn’t exist. How can man be wrong if wrong doesn’t exist? According to the origin story, god may have allowed things to happen, but it seems pretty clear that man himself took the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong.

@Floyd

I see where you’re going with this, but as I’ve said before, there is no logical paradox in the main teaching of the faith - loving your neighbour and your enemy as yourself makes complete sense to me, and I like the idea of setting an example. The idea of a God is a more difficult one, but it’s an idea that I’m prepared to face when I’m ready. I can find happiness in doing the same sort of thing but without religion, such as volunteer work abroad, but religion to me centralises my beliefs and gives me perspective on what I do in life.
I can’t say that I agree with people who think that religious people do good in their lives out of a selfish act of wanting to get to heaven. That doesn’t quite work out - the idea of heaven is so infinitely far away that the act we do in our life is completely separated from the idea of the reward. You do a good deed because it makes you feel good, because it is right.

In that sense, it almost sounds like your spiritualism is used as a crutch. If you are strong in your beliefs, yet yielding to the possibility of change given logical argument, your beliefs should be able to stand up on their own. While I agree that sometimes focus is needed to think about things, but I’m not sure church, or places of religious worship are a neutral place to end up with uninfluenced personal discovery.

@Floyd

Yeah, maybe I am more of a moralist. I see no problem with that though. The rest can come later. As I’ve said, I’m not the perfect candidate for your questions because I would be the first to admit that I’m not overly religious. My faith in God isn’t exactly strong.
I try to read philosophy as a sort of hobby. I’ve read parts of Locke, Rousseau, Nietchze, Machiavelli and C.S Lewis. I find it interesting, but I also find it hard to draw any satisfying conclusions from them. I particularly like Locke and Lewis however, as I tend to agree with them. I do agree though, that God’s teachings can be found there as well. Out of interest, what philosophy do you read and enjoy? Have they had a profound effect on your life?

While many wouldn’t call it philosophy in the strictest sense, I like to read Dante, and Chaucer. I’m betting you’ll guess which works, as they each only have one ‘commercially’ successful work, and yes those are the ones I’ve read. While I don’t agree with them in the strictest sense, I find the imagery and ideas fascinating.

[Soup]

@DansonDelta40

That’s so hilarious, I literally laughed myself numb upon reading this.

I’m not sure what your point is here. There are many causes of cancer: it can be hereditary, it can be caused by radiation and chemical damage etc. None of those require you to be unhealthy when you get it.

[MaxTheLimit]

Healthy people DO often get cancer. I was a very fit and healthy individual when I was diagnosed. I’m way less healthy now, and…ehem ‘there is no tumor’ /arnold

[Ond_kaja]

@MaxTheLimit

Healthy people DO often get cancer. I was a very fit and healthy individual when I was diagnosed. I’m way less healthy now, and…ehem ‘there is no tumor’ /arnold

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BANkMaLJaY4

[Soup]

@MaxTheLimit

Healthy people DO often get cancer. I was a very fit and healthy individual when I was diagnosed. I’m way less healthy now, and…ehem ‘there is no tumor’ /arnold

Sadly, that’s exactly my point.

[MaxTheLimit]

Ya, I figured you got it. It was more directed at danson

[Cup_o_Joe]

@Soup

Gerson’s treatments have been shown to be harmful at best. Just because it’s being “researched” doesn’t mean anything. If you’d said clinical trials were being conducted in Japan and Mexico, that’d be a whole different thing.

They are Clinical trials, you’d know that if you would have watched Dying to have known.

@Soup

But “research” leaves me with nothing. Also, I went on your Catholic forum and even there people were telling you anecdotal evidence (you apparently knowing someone who was cured is anecdotal evidence) is worth dirt.

So you’re saying that testimonies and medical reports is worth nothing? Sounds to me like you’re so close minded against nutritional cured that you’d rather die on chemo. Didn’t you see what TOP said???

I had a germ cell cancer, testicular cancer stage 3. My HCG was over 300,000. Normal is like >5. To give you an idea, Lance Armstrong was 150,000 HCG. I was a close stage 4, fatal. I went through an aggressive chemo regiment that destroyed me. My oncologist had to stop the chemo a week early because I was dying. Despite that, I went to a autologus stem cell transplant specialist to prepare for high dose chemo. At that time, all I could eat was apples, 5 to 8 a day. My HCG hovered at around 50 while the date was being set for high dose. I went to UVA hospital and had another blood test. The test came back >5 HCG. I was tenitivly put in remission Oct. 31 , 2003. A diet of apples kept me alive. That’s all I can say.

Soup, if cured cancer patient testimonies and medical records isn’t good enough for you, then you would probably poison yourself with chemo and prescription drugs before changing your diet.

@Soup

They also told you about your stupid immune system theory: cancers are your own cells (it’s so easy to prove they aren’t ‘waste’ as you put it), your immune system doesn’t attack it.

Listen, in New Brunswick, New Jersey they found that the reason for cancer is damaged proteins that weren’t discarded before doing the mitosis causing the genes to malfunctions.

https://www.scienceblog.com/cms/waste-disposal-protein-mechanism-behind-cancer-tumor-suppression-22143.html

If the damaged proteins would be discarded, the doctor in this article says that the cancer would literally fall apart. The only way to do that properly is to feed your body with so much nutrients that it discards waste product.

@Soup

Chemo is meant to be harmful: it’s how the cancer cells are killed off. The “cure” is obviously not in healthy nutrition since lots of healthy people get cancer: by your logic it would be impossible for them to get it.

That’s not what I said at all. Yes lots of healthy people have cancer but some cells in these healthy people aren’t getting enough nutrition. Most of the energy taken by the body for the food is spent during the digestion process to create very healthy adult stem cells in the small intestine. That’s where the Norwalk Juice comes in, four 8 ounce glasses per day helps get more nutrition directly into the blood through the stomach wall.
Charlotte Gerson has 4juices/day. 70% of her diet is live food (plant life), she has no arthritis, she’s 84 and looks 70.

@Soup

EDIT: Also, that guy you were talking about in the Catholic forum, the one who made the juicer, he didn’t live to be 117.

He is a doctor by the way, unlike most doctors these days he recommended natural vitamins and minerals, not chemicals.
According to his grave stone he still lived to be 99, a lot older than most North Americans these days. He did write a few books though which include

“Fresh Vegetable and Fruit Juices” which was written to better explain and emphasize the procedures and specific benefits of juicing. Raw carrot juice for instance is rich in Vitamins A, B, B, C, D, E, and K. Properly prepared raw carrot juice aids digestion and is valuable in the maintenance of the bone structure that supports our entire body, including the teeth. Even intestinal and liver diseases are sometimes due to the lack of certain vitamins and minerals found in raw carrot juice. Endive juice contains elements essential to the optic systems while the cucumber juice offers the best of diuretic qualities, what’s even better is that it’s pulp free. The list goes on. It is well worth one’s time to study the benefits derived from “fresh raw” juices. Actually, it’s worth far more than your time… after all, this is your health and your life. Take control, feel better, look younger, and enjoy your life more completely. You are worth it!

[Soup]

@Cup o Joe

They are Clinical trials, you’d know that if you would have watched Dying to have known.

I said proper clinical trials. As in ones that are done fairly, have a test, a placebo and a control group and have adequate amounts of subjects.

@Cup o Joe

So you’re saying that testimonies and medical reports is worth nothing? Sounds to me like you’re so close minded against nutritional cured that you’d rather die on chemo. Didn’t you see what TOP said???

Anecdotal evidence isn’t worth anything because it’s only one or two cases, not a controlled trial. I might know someone who has two hearts, doesn’t mean everyone has 'em.

@Cup o Joe

Soup, if cured cancer patient testimonies and medical records isn’t good enough for you, then you would probably poison yourself with chemo and prescription drugs before changing your diet.

I already eat healthily, so I see no need to change my diet. I’d rather not have coffee enemas and calve’s liver injections: they ain’t exactly healthy.

@Cup o Joe

Listen, in New Brunswick, New Jersey they found that the reason for cancer is damaged proteins that weren’t discarded before doing the mitosis causing the genes to malfunctions.

https://www.scienceblog.com/cms/waste-disposal-protein-mechanism-behind-cancer-tumor-suppression-22143.html

If the damaged proteins would be discarded, the doctor in this article says that the cancer would literally fall apart. The only way to do that properly is to feed your body with so much nutrients that it discards waste product.

Why did you post that link if you didn’t even read the article?

@Cup o Joe

That’s not what I said at all. Yes lots of healthy people have cancer but some cells in these healthy people aren’t getting enough nutrition. Most of the energy taken by the body for the food is spent during the digestion process to create very healthy adult stem cells in the small intestine. That’s where the Norwalk Juice comes in, four 8 ounce glasses per day helps get more nutrition directly into the blood through the stomach wall.
Charlotte Gerson has 4juices/day. 70% of her diet is live food (plant life), she has no arthritis, she’s 84 and looks 70.

Why would a specific kind of juice transfer more nutrients? Fruit juice is what it is, you either add shit, concentrate, or distil it.

“Some cells aren’t getting enough nutrition.” I can’t believe you actually said that. What, are their bodies being selective in where the blood goes?

@Cup o Joe

He is a doctor by the way, unlike most doctors these days he recommended natural vitamins and minerals, not chemicals.
According to his grave stone he still lived to be 99, a lot older than most North Americans these days. He did write a few books though which include

“Fresh Vegetable and Fruit Juices” which was written to better explain and emphasize the procedures and specific benefits of juicing. Raw carrot juice for instance is rich in Vitamins A, B, B, C, D, E, and K. Properly prepared raw carrot juice aids digestion and is valuable in the maintenance of the bone structure that supports our entire body, including the teeth. Even intestinal and liver diseases are sometimes due to the lack of certain vitamins and minerals found in raw carrot juice. Endive juice contains elements essential to the optic systems while the cucumber juice offers the best of diuretic qualities, what’s even better is that it’s pulp free. The list goes on. It is well worth one’s time to study the benefits derived from “fresh raw” juices. Actually, it’s worth far more than your time… after all, this is your health and your life. Take control, feel better, look younger, and enjoy your life more completely. You are worth it!

None of this is based in science though, so it doesn’t really matter what he wrote.

Also, “natural vitamins and minerals” are chemicals.

You don’t know much in the way of science, do you?

[Dillxn]

No such thing as modern day miracles:

@Dillxn

Ok I CBA to read all that I’ve missed in this thread as it’s become quite overwhelming the amount of posts we’re getting here. I did see some mention of “Eucharistic miracles” from some Christians so I thought I’d give my word on that (ie. miracles in general in modern day). I wrote an article on the Charismatic movement (unrelated to “Eucharistic miracles” but the article’s applicable nonetheless) recently so I’ll post that here:

[COLOR=‘DeepSkyBlue’][noparse]
Pentecostalism (or other sects of the Charismatic movement) is much like any other Christian denomination, where it’s defining quirk focuses on personal modern-day experience with God through the Holy Spirit and baptism. Pentecostals try to base their worship on the worship of early Christians described in the book of Acts, but mistakingly claim personal experiences with God also based on this time period. This poses a major fallacy here. Pentecostals believe that God will (and does) speak to us in modern days. They believe in things such as modern day prophesy, speaking in tongues, and other various miracles (including calling upon God to perform miracles such in the sense of religious healers), as well as other things such as instrumental music performed in worship. When you focus on the miracles themselves so much, there en lies the tendency of many to neglect to realize the purpose such miracles. The focus is also removed off of what is being taught and who is teaching it.
I feel it’s necessary to say that while I have never attended a Pentecostal congregation, I do have some Pentecostal friends who’ve described to me in detail (as well as with my research on the religion) what Pentecostalism really practices and teaches, and for the most part I think it’s legitimately from the Bible except for a few quirks, mentioned above. Regarding modern day prophesy, I’ve covered this topic before in my article about Mormonism and their beliefs on the subject. In the same manner, we look to passages such as Revelation 22:18-19 “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” and Deuteronomy 4:2 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” No one is able, nor has the authority, to take away or add to what is already set as the word of God, provided to us in the form of the Bible. The Bible is the COMPLETE word of God, as made clear in 2 Peter 1:3 “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.” as well as in Jude 3 “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” These passages plainly point out that we as Christians have all that we need to know God’s word, as the faith, or the complete doctrine, has been delivered to the saints.
Also, we can look in Galatians 1:6-8 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” It says we’re not to teach anything other than Jesus’ law that was spoken by Jesus himself and also transcribed by prophets around that time. In a very similar case, Pentecostals also believe that we as Christians can speak in tongues as talked about in 1 Corinthians 14:4-5 “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.” It’s also believed by Pentecostals that speaking in tongues refers to speaking in a language unknown to man (or a language of the Angels). This is certainly not what is described in the Bible. They try to back up this belief on 1 Corinthians 13:1 “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” The point Paul is making here is not that he is speaking of a non-human language when he says “tongues of men and angels,” but that speaking without love (“charity,” or “love” in the NKJV) is meaningless. He is using metaphoric and hyperbolic speech to elocute his point when he says “I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” It becomes furthermore apparent that this is what he means in the next two verses, where Paul explains that having all knowledge or all faith without also having love does no good. The language of the “tongues” was that of humans.
I do not doubt that Christians at one time were able to speak in tongues through he help of the Holy Spirit like described in Acts 2:4 “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” But some neglect to realize what 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says. “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” It specifically talks about speaking in tongues and prophecies ending!
Now, we may ask, “but when are these things to end?” If we look at that passage, we see that it says that it will end when we have the perfect word of God. This undoubtedly refers to the Bible as we know it itself is the perfect word of God, therefore there is no such thing as modern day prophecy, nor speaking in tongues. Also, it’s important to mention in that passage when it says “knowledge” it’s talking about pretty much the same thing as prophecy to where you “know” something new of the word of God. We have the entire and perfect word of God, the Bible. There is nothing more that can nor will be prophesied, nor knowledge that will be given to Christians by God or speaking in tongues by the utterance given to Christians by the Holy spirit. Some will argue that where it says “perfect” it refers to Jesus coming, but we can look to see that it refers to the Law of Christ when they use that word, as it also uses it in James 1:25 “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”
In an almost related belief, Pentecostals believe that Christians can call upon God (acting as would a ‘religious healer’) to perform miracles upon others. Let’s put aside for a moment that miracles (like of the first century) aren’t something that happens in modern day. We’ll talk about that in a second, but to further prove our point let’s (for the sake of argument) say that it does. Pentecostals are cleverly saying that it’s not them actually preforming the miracle, but God, through the avenue of prayer. But I feel that they’re taking this for granted. At the point where you can expect someone to be able to call upon God to heal someone in an immediate way, it becomes a matter of undeserved authority. We as humans do not have the power nor authority to perform miracles ourselves or to call upon God to perform a miracle and take that for granted (especially in a manner as immediate as something like faith healing). We are unworthy to deserve the great mercy that our loving God continues to give us, and certainly not fit to expect things of him like faith healing.
Now, as stated above, of course there’s a more prominent reason faith healing, prophecy, revelation and speaking in tongues do not exist today: they are miracles, and these miracles that are of the first century do not exist today. It is made apparent to us in the Bible that the point of miracles is to confirm the word of God. We find an example of this in the Old Testament in Exodus. In Chapter three and four God shows Moses how to confirm his word if the people did not believe with three signs (the serpent rod, toggling his hand being afflicted with leprosy when he put it in and out of his cloak, and the water turning into blood). In the New Testament, Hebrews 2:1 – 4 further makes this point evident to us. So, therefore, as described in the Bible, the word of God was confirmed by these miracles, wonders, prophecies, revelations, etc, and was made complete into the Bible itself. And, as stated also in the Bible, that explicitly means that there is no more need for any of that.
Now, one other thing Pentecostals believe is that Christians should use instrumental music in their worship. The short answer to why this is incorrect is that we don’t have biblical authority to do so. Everything we do in worship should be done with authority. This authority issue is found in the Bible, in the story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-16). We are to do exactly what God says and to not deviate away from that (and that includes things like adding instruments). Of course, the Jews of the Old Testament were told to use instruments (Psalms 33). But every time someone tries to say that we can use instrumental music in worship they pull from the Old Testament. This is because there are no mentions that we should in the New Testament. The reason you can’t just pull things like that from the Old Testament is because much of it doesn’t apply to us today as Christians, because it was old Jewish law; before Christ came with the new law. With that same logic (that you can pull from the Old Testament Jewish law to justify something) then we could look at Exodus 21:23-25 “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” and Leviticus 24:19-21 “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.” and claim that we are entitled to hurt someone (physically) as equal as they have hurt us. We know that this is just not true, however. Matthew 5:38-39 states “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5 makes several changes from the Old Law, but of course there are more than just those. Look at Leviticus 1-7 for example. Do we still do animal sacrifices as Christians? No, of course not. So why then would Psalms 33 be more any more applicable? The fact of the matter is, it’s not. But, if you need any more proof, look at Ephesians 5:19 “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;” We are to sing and make melody in our hearts, not with instruments.
My Pentecostal friend claimed one of their reasons for believing in the doctrine was because they “felt Jesus” there at their congregation. I don’t doubt that they felt something, but I do doubt it was Jesus. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 offers some words on this, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” That’s not to say it was specifically Satan that sways all of our emotions, but nonetheless we shouldn’t rely on our own feelings to guide us but rather God’s word, for the devil (or our own emotions) can deceive us very easily into “feeling” something is right, when it is not.
[/noparse]

[Acristoff]

Of course there aren’t any modern day miracles, people would fall for anything back then.

[Dillxn]

Yeah, that was the purpose then; to prove Jesus was the son of God. But now we have all of that recorded in the Bible for us so that was our ‘one time.’ But even then people rejected Him as Christ (ie. the Jews that didn’t turn Christian).

[Soup]

That didn’t prove anything though, since it’s not possible to prove that they happened.

[danielsangeo]

…

[Havelok]

So…

God (through Jesus and otherwise) preformed miracles back then, when there existed no scientific method and thousands of highly superstitious folk willing to believe anything they see at the drop of a hat, but he refuses to do so now, when high definition cameras and scientific instruments could record the event for all to see and hear?

How convenient.

[mattemuse]

Or, Jesus’ teachings had nothing to do with ‘miracles,’ and his followers ascribed to him supernatural powers in order to convince others that their religious leader was greater than his rival sects.

I mean, isnt there an ongoing theological debate among religious historians over whether or not Jesus himself literally claimed to be the Son of God while he was alive and teaching his religion?

[danielsangeo]

@mattemuse

Or, Jesus’ teachings had nothing to do with ‘miracles,’ and his followers ascribed to him supernatural powers in order to convince others that their religious leader was greater than his rival sects.

I mean, isnt there an ongoing theological debate among religious historians over whether or not Jesus himself literally claimed to be the Son of God while he was alive and teaching his religion?

Huh. I hadn’t heard about that. Interesting.

[Havelok]

If you look into it you will find that many theologians actively discuss and argue about things that most fundamentalist christians would find quite blasphemous.

Its actually quite amusing.

[Dillxn]

@danielsangeo

Okay, I’ll respond over here because the “Ask a Christian!” thread was closed (along with a bunch of others…):

I was asked to prove something (which is, apparently, defined as something that I can guarantee with absolute certainty). So, here goes:

If you are standing on the Earth and you’re holding an object that is heavier than air. If you release that object, it will fall to the ground 100% of the time. There is a 0% chance that it won’t fall to the ground. It is something I can guarantee with absolute certainty.

Ok I agree it happens every time you show an example, but how do we know that it won’t mess up next time, or the time after that, etc?

@Havelok

So…

God (through Jesus and otherwise) preformed miracles back then, when there existed no scientific method and thousands of highly superstitious folk willing to believe anything they see at the drop of a hat, but he refuses to do so now, when high definition cameras and scientific instruments could record the event for all to see and hear?

How convenient.

If Jesus had come now then 2000 years later people would be making the same argument.

@mattemuse

Or, Jesus’ teachings had nothing to do with ‘miracles,’ and his followers ascribed to him supernatural powers in order to convince others that their religious leader was greater than his rival sects.

I mean, isnt there an ongoing theological debate among religious historians over whether or not Jesus himself literally claimed to be the Son of God while he was alive and teaching his religion?

Do elaborate. That’s quite interesting, I’ve not heard that.

[danielsangeo]

@Dillxn

Ok I agree it happens every time you show an example, but how do we know that it won’t mess up next time, or the time after that, etc?

Because of the literal TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of pieces of evidence that this NEVER happens. We know it won’t happen because of the nature of gravity. We know the nature of gravity because of our intense interaction with it on a by-nanosecond basis.