Tammy knew exactly what she was doing when she chose to write that the way she did! She could have honestly and very easily said, I need to go back and clarify something I missed. INSTEAD she chose to stir the pot with her laugh worthy silliness that Jesus just gave her a message. It destroys good threads. It is annoying and purposefully offensive. Tammy should respect what 100% of posters have said on here and take her Jebus crap elsewhere.
Giant thread of convince-me-not-to-be-a-theist
Really this thread does not need to be about me. Nor should this thread be about me. I offered some suggestions, some things that the OP could consider, and I was quite content to leave it at that... but as is always the case, certain people will never allow me to leave it at that, but instead make the thread about me, and my faith, and not the content of anything I have shared or written.
Coma, I am sorry that you have become one of those who seeks to find fault with me at any turn, regardless of whether something has been shown to be true or not. I did not post as I did to purposely offend or stir the pot, or anything of the sort. I simply spoke honestly. Did I know that some would be offended and annoyed if I am honest? Of course I know that. But what am I supposed to do about that? Lie? Atheists saying there is no God, or that religion is child abuse, etc... are also offending people by what they say, but they say so because they believe it; not to purposely offend. Do you think that they should take their 'anti-theism' crap elsewhere?
Engage or ignore, as you choose... but stop blaming me for what you choose and help to do.
I'm not responding to any more of the 'tammy is so offensive and insulting, tammy is crazy, tammy is a liar, tammy is delusional, tammy should shut up or go away, etc etc'. Want to discuss content of what is written... great. The rest is pointless.
My apologies again to the OP for my part in the turn of your thread.
Really this thread does not need to be about me
It would not have been dishonest to just go back and correct your error. It was purposefully silly and inflammatory to say your Lord Jesus asked you to clarify something. The height of showy display and attention whoring.
The protests over TEC's participation are as distracting to anyone reading the thread as TEC's dangling the tasty bait which some cannot resist taking (some even bite BEFORE it's even been dangled, LOL). If you think she's trolling, ignore it, don't take the bait: as ex-JWs, everyone here SHOULD be very familiar with how 'persecution complexes' operate.
Quick review of the thread, where OP asked THIS question
DS211 said- And the more important question, why is it a creator couldnt allow for species to evolve?
I responded with:
You'd have to rewrite Genesis, then, since the Creation narrative clearly says that God created ALL living animals in finished form ("according to their kind") in a single day. Genesis does NOT say that "God created single-celled organisms, and allowed them to evolve over the course of billions of years." It does NOT say, "God created kinds, and allowed them to become new kinds, if some populations should become reproductively isolated from the other group and their environment changed."
The real question to ask is, "Why would God give animals this amazing capacity to evolve to handle changes in their environment, and NOT take credit for it?
Also you'd need to ask, "Why would God create humans with a BRAIN, the crowning achievement of His creations, and never mention it ANYWHERE in the Bible?"
And, "Why would God allow the credit for cognition go to the HEART, and NOT the brain?"
Simple answer is the authors of the Genesis accounts didn't KNOW ANYTHING about evolution, and believed the thinking of their time about all organs of cognition being located in the TORSO, NOT the head. Their writings reflect their ignorance, being uninspired by the non-existent "Intelligent Designer".
But back to evolution:
I'm pointing out the strong desire of believers to insert concepts into a 2,500 yr old Hebraic scroll to harmonize it with evolution, clearly proven as fact within the past few centuries from scientific research. It should be patently obvious that an insertion of Darwin's theory into Genesis creation narrative is intellectually dishonest and clearly anachronistic, in essence allowing the reader's modern Worldview to intrude into their interpretation of the Genesis account. It's classic Xian eisegesis at work, at its best (or, at its worst, as the case may be).
Not only that, it's hypocritical: Darwin was ridiculed by believers for daring to say we share a common ancestor with primates (and still IS ridiculed, as likes of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron have continued with their unique brand of fundamentalist idiocy). But now that more-educated Xians see that evolution is completely ludicrious to argue against, some are trying to insert it into the Bible so they dont have to face reality?
Of course, TEC FINALLY played her 'trump card' (at least, what she thinks of as her 'trump card', which everyone else might label as a 'chump card'), the one where she claims to possess TRUTH heard directly from Jesus; it was played by TEC to support the claim that God allowed evolution to be "baked into the cake" in Genesis.
I countered with Jesus' ignorance of other TRUTHS about "God's creations" which we've since learned from science, eg Jesus didn't know anything about the germ theory of disease, since he poo-poohed the value of handwashing; Jesus claimed possessing God's authorization to forgive sins in order to cure human diseases (which wasn't so unique, really, since even putting aside the examples of the many other charismatic Jewish Messianic claimaints who wandered about Palestine performing acts of healing, recall that the Jewish Temple priests ALSO claimed to possess God's authority to cure leprosy via forgiveness of sins; Temple priests followed an elaborate ritual delineated in the Torah, involving dipping a pigeon in the blood of another; the process has inspired Carribean voodoo witch doctors for 1,000's of years).
So we're now demonstrating TEC's (and the voice's) ignorance of what are now clearly accepted to be TRUTHS, eg the germ theory of disease.
But even further, we're now seeing unmistakeable evidence of TEC's ignorance of Xian theology (which further erodes the claim of hearing the voice of Jesus, since you'd suspect that Jesus would understand the principles by which he claimed to heal)!
TEC said- Now, I DID miss part of what you were saying, and I am being reminded by my Lord to go back and address this.
Adam said-That was his schtick: he supposedly healed by forgiving sins (where the standard cure for leprosy performed by the Temple priests and recorded in Leviticus is tantamount to a voodoo ritual performed by a witch doctor in the Caribbean Islands, involving pigeon blood, shaking of rattles, etc.
TEC said- He did not heal by forgiving sins. He healed by the power in Him, as is shown regarding the woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. He said, "Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me." (Luke 8: 43-47)... and according to the faith those who wanted to be healed had in them. (Daughter, your faith has healed you, go in peace. Luke 8: 48)
Every single incident regarding healing had to do with FAITH to BE healed, and the power that Christ had TO heal those of faith.
LOL! That is demonstrably WRONG. Flat-out INCORRECT.
TEC, your inner voice clearly hasn't read the NT or understood the Bible's explanation of Jesus' power to heal being solely based on the concept of Jesus being authorized by God to forgive sins, where God's 'Holy Spirit' effects the cure. It wasn't some power Jesus had "inside of him", or even faith in HIM, but rather, faith in God's grace and ability (via Holy Spirit) which actually effected the cure. Jesus was the mediator, the messiah, often referred to as the high priest (who also was able to forgive sins on behalf of God), but the POWER was from God.
This was the entire basis of Jesus defense against the Pharisees, who charged Jesus with violating the Sabbath by saying was healing (a form of work which may have required making a mud salve with his spit); Jesus countered by claiming that He (Jesus) wasn't working, or doing work for his OWN benefit (he didn't accept payment), but was doing the work of glorifying his Father. God's spirit was working on the Sabbath, not him!
That's also the entire basis behind Jesus' announcing the only unforgiveable sin was the offense of committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: the Pharisees alleged that Jesus was getting the power to heal from Satan, and NOT from God (via his Holy Spirit). Jesus considered the allegation so offensive as to declare that single accusation as being the ONLY unforgivable words that could be spoken. So Jesus wasn't claiming the power to heal came from HIM, but from the Holy Spirit, the force through which God acts upon Earth to carry out God's will.
Here's that claim you made, just as a reminder, so let's get to the "meat" of the claim:
TEC said- Every single incident regarding healing had to do with FAITH to BE healed, and the power that Christ had TO heal those of faith.
Nope. Categorically and demonstrably wrong. FALSE.
In fact, there are MANY instances where the "patient" didn't possess or demonstrate faith in Jesus' ability to heal, since the restriction was that the person seeking healing, even on behalf of another person, had to possess faith that Jesus could effect a cure (and if the 'cure' failed, the requestor could be blamed for the treatment's failure, due to their "lack of faith"). And even that is an overstatement, since there are Biblical examples where NO faith in JEsus' ability was demonstrated, or could be demonstrated.
Here's a page "your Lord" might wish to study, since he clearly needs to learn "his" own schtick before he goes commanding others to preach his message (and ironically, Jesus probably should have a bit less faith in himself, or his abilities, since it's unwarranted, based on the ignorance on display in your words).
Healings were done in numerous ways. There were times Jesus responded to the faith of another person who asked on behalf of the one who needed healing.
Matt. 8:5-10 It was the faith of the centurion that healed his own servant. If we apply this today those who have enough faith for their own healing can apply it to everyone else to be healed.
Mk.5:35-43 The daughter of Jairus was healed from the fathers faith and asking.
The paralytic was carried by his friends to Jesus and “When Jesus saw their faith ” (for their friend) He pronounced his sins forgiven first and then healed him (Mark 2:2-12).
Lk.17:11-19 Jesus healed all 10 lepers but only one obeyed showing that he was the only one to possess true saving faith.
And how could Jesus resurrect the dead, if "the dead are conscious of nothing", and couldn't have faith in Jesus being an authorized agent, OR faith in God?
Jesus healed people from the ultimate sickness of sin, death. In Jn.11 Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead ,certainly it wasn ’ t Lazarus ’ faith that raised himself, he was dead, neither did anyone else believe it could occur then. It was done so they could believe he was their Messiah (also Lk. 8:54).
Other examples are in John 18:10, when Peter cut of the ear of Malchus, Jesus healed him without any faith from anyone.
(That's an example of God being able to heal via the power of being the creator, since Malchus' ear was lost from a disease process but by being cut off, i.e. he didn't 'sin', but Jesus was given authority to request such acts be performed by serving as the mediator of humanity, acting on their behalf).
Lk.8:26-39 The demoniac of Gadarene was healed without asking before he was capable of expressing his faith.
The Bible records Jesus doing just as many miracles without anyone exercising faith then with their faith. Jesus performed miracles with disbelief among the disciples.
Of the 35 miracles recorded in the Gospel accounts the faith of the recipient is exercised in only 10 of the accounts. Healing of the lame man (Jn.5:1-9) the cleansing of a leper (Mt.8:2-4) healing a mans withered hand (Mt.9:2-8) the healing of the man born blind (Jn.9:1-7) healing the blindness of Bartemaeus (Mt.20:29-34) The women who had a blood flow (Mt.9:20-22; Mk.5:24-34) Peter who walked on water to Jesus (Mt.14:24-33) the miraculous catching of the fish (Lk.5:1-11) and the second miraculous catch (Jn.21:1-11) The cleansing of the 10 lepers of which only one had faith (Lk.17:11-19).
Jesus did not indiscriminately heal ALL the people ALL of the time, but It was those God willed to be healed that were healed.
While he required faith for some he did not require it for all. In John 5:1-15: (v.3) multitudes were gathered at the pool of Bethsaida to be healed, Jesus did not call everyone forward, He picked only one person to be healed, a blind and lame man. Jesus initiated a conversation and asked the man at the pool of Bethsaida if he wanted to be made well. His answer was that there was no one to carry him to the pool, believing that if he entered the water he would be healed. The man with the infirmity was healed by God’s grace. He had no faith in Jesus; he didn’t even know it was Jesus who healed him until later (v.12-13).
In John 9 we find a blind man who did not ask to be healed, but was picked to be healed out of many others. This also was God’s grace. When Jesus saw the man blind from birth responding to His disciples’ inquiry, He healed him without his asking. It was not about their faith as much as it is about His will. Everyone Jesus WILLED to be healed was healed, 100%. This is the basis for a healing from a biblical frame of reference. He did not only heal those who had faith,He often picked those who had no faith.
Matt 13:13-15: "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.'
Wait a minute: wouldn't you simply look to the one who IS the source of TRUTH and simply "KNOW"?
TEC said- Depends. Might need to learn some basic addition first, before leaping straight to the calculus. (milk, before meat)
And WHAT extremely ironic advice for you to give anyone else, esp to me (the person who just schooled you in NT theology, which is yet another topic which you clearly don't understand, but arrogantly dare to act like you do, AKA a poseur).
Adam, thanks for rewriting the important parts of the thread in one post. I was wondering where you were. Sadly I think DS, the one who did the OP has lost interest in his question. He is probably agnostic.
Love Kate xx
Adamah--didnt Jesus ask his father to forgive all the ones who tortured him? "Forgive them for they know not what they do?" Thats not healing but they showed lack of faith and he still asked for forgiveness for them. Yet you see he told the criminal that showd faith that hed be with him in paradise, and said nothing to the one who didnt show faith....is that not a contradiction? Sry just a random thought i had when inread your post.
And llease enough about tec....i cant prove or disprove that she is or isnt chattin with Christ so ill stick to the post she gives, research it and if i dont find much truth in the words ill discard and move on. :-) whre were we?!?! Lol
Now now kate lets not make hasty decisions just because i stepped away...you forget i am currently still trying to exit my wife from the org, and myself really, and im the only one who works to support her and my two kids. However there is a lot to read from these last few pages of posts, much of which is a lot to take in. Im not as quick as some! ;-)
Here comes an über response to Adams post with his post broken down sentence by sentence and slowly responded to. (The second most annoying thing to read.) :-)
Good points Adam. I suspect the response will amount to, all I can tell you is what my LORD says. He is the spirit and truth. If you have ears to listen you will hear.
Adamah--i also have found it worrysome that some change certain things in genesis to support or attempt to support new things we discover...dinosaurs is still a huge dent in the amount of time we and the earth has been around. for me i have a big issue with the lineage of Jesus and how many generations (not the WT generation) of hmans date back to adam when sciene and archeologic discovery shows different. But then again i am also aware in certain flaws of carbon dating, but dont know near enough yet to make a solid base for either argument. Does that make sense? Im at work so im kinda pressed for time.