PaulS

Brian, Could you please elaborate on your statement- "For those who cannot stand being in God's presence they most likely will experience Him as Hell.......What makes the experience Hellish stems from the reality that the souls who reject Him may be 100% aware that they can change and accept Him. But in the life beyond the Veil there is no denial of the truth. They see fully what they cannot accept. And so they refuse to draw near to Him for doing so would be the worst possible choice for them to make. Neither God nor anyone else has condemned them to this consequence they choose it freely, because they spent their lives choosing it freely here and now." I wonder what sort of soul you think might stand before this God of Unconditional love, which of neccessity gives itself away freely, yet refuse to draw near to Him/it? I'm not debating with you, but rather am simply interested in your theology. Cheers Paul

Today involves helping my in-laws with a 'clean out' (too much stuff behind the shed being kept for 'someday'). Followed by some fishing from the bridge near where we live, with my sons and another family, whilst our wives go for a 'power-walk' (which should really be called a power-talk'). But they will expectantly return with a coffee which makes up for their absence. Then a BBQ lunch down the beach before returning home in the afternoon for an evening of pleasant friendship with the same family, who are staying the night. Not sure how I'll feel about going to work in the morning!

In the news in my State today: EXORCISTS who say depression and schizophrenia are demons that can be cast out, are treating children as young as two for possession, a claim the Australian Medical Association has dismissed as unscientific and potentially harmful. Perth-based Set Right is a non-denominational Christian ministry. Their Leader, known as ‘Apostle’ Michelle Pecoult, says they’ve seen a “massive rise” in possessions, and now exorcise four or five people a day. She said people find them online and through psychic fairs and they also visit schools and prisons. The Set Right website notes that depression is a "common low ranking demon" while schizophrenia is "another demon we have met often and evicted". "We've removed schizophrenia. People have been healed of it… God is greater than any medical doctor, he’s greater than me. We’ve seen absolute physical healing… and people in a major state of depression,” Ms Pecoult said.

Guapo, How would I know where those 7.6 million children are after they are dead - nobody does, including you. If, what I think you are getting at, they are somehow in a better place, so that justifies their painful and miserable death here on earth, then I'll just quietly shake my head and leave it at that I think. As for studying the outside cultures, I don't need to learn anything about another culture that seemingly justifies the slaughter of children and animals. It is an ancient, racist view that suited the Israelites for their time. Thankfully we've generally left those sorts of views behind as we've evolved as a species. Cheers Paul

My take on the orginal post was that Yvonne was asking about faith healing in the context that she couldn't believe that God would heal some and not others, amongst other points. In that context I think the likes of Neon and I are saying that in our opinion God simply isn't healing some and not others (such as the amputee). I, and I think Neon, hold the view that faith healing accredited to a God choosing to use his/her power when they see fit, isn't credible in our view. However if, as I think Dutch is relating, the question is have some people been healed through faith healings, then I'd hazard a guess that most here agree - they have. It can and does happen, but just what is the mechansim - A God answering prayers selectively, or something we don't properly understand having that affect on those who recieve/seek the healing? IMO, I think perhaps the human mind and body has some ability to heal itself, even if it is 'tricked' into doing so by using 'faith', but it would seem that there are restrictions (whatever the healing mechanism is) in that there isn't a single report of a person being healed to the extent of regrowing a limb. It would seem that faith healing through God or through the power of one's own mind, has restrictions. To me, those restrictions rule out the likelihood of God playing a part in the healing (unless by God we are talking about the power of one's own mind & body). Cheers Paul

Thanks for clarifying that Joseph. That would seem to make sense of the point I think I was missing. I don't doubt that people are healed at some faith healings, I just doubt that they are healed by some external force because they have faith. I think more than likely a belief that somehow faith will result in them being healed, has more power than what we understand. But of course, not enough power to heal amputations, etc. Cheers Paul

Dutch, Can you elaborate a little more - I don't quite understand. What is aimless about the arm? If people are to argue the merits of faith healing and espouse that God effected the healing, why would it be unreasonable to ask that if that really was the case (God affecting the healing) then why don't we see God healing amputees? I agree that one's own faith may result in one's own healing - I mean we see that in scientific experiements involving placebos. But when the claims extend to the healing being 'caused' by God, God being a distinct enitity that chooses to use its power to affect a healing, then surely the amputee-healing proposal is a fair one? Paul

I think Mr Wigglesworth's quote is a bit hollow. It seems common for fundamental Christians to use this phrase "nothing's impossible for God" without demonstrating anything like it. I mean it would seem impossible for this type of God to stop the 7.6million children in the world who die every year from malnutrition, poverty, curable disease, etc. It would seem impossible for this type of God to help everyone "see the light" as less than 1/3 of the world are Christian (and the third that are may argue amongst themselves as to who is a proper Christian or not). And as Neon points out, it would seem impossible for a God who can heal sore backs, stiff necks, limps etc, to physically heal an amputee. Just one single documented case of somebody's arm growing back would seem such an excellent way for God to demonstrate that nothing is impossible for him/her/it.

Firstly I find it very interesting that this place 'Hell' didn't even exist until the New Testament. Where was it before then? How were pre-Jesus people 'saved' if Hell is an automatic destination? (Deleted redundant quoted post from directly above.) JosephM (as Moderator) Guapo, Why is Hell the natural way? Where do you get that from? Why isn't it believed in the OT? Did it exist since the beginning of time? Why not cast Satan there at first sin rather than let this melodrama play out. Why would God let human life continue on and on if over two thirds of his creation are simply going to end up in Hell? Why not stop it now? Can't God do that? On and on and on it goes. I would encourage you to stop quoting the bible and ask these questions of yourself. Just why would God want to treat you like that? I would like to say that God wouldn't, and that theology is more acceptable to me, although currently I would have to say that I don't think I believe in God. Maybe that'll change, maybe it won't. Cheers Paul PS. I don't really like being called 'sweety', but I'll let you be facetious this once because I know my thoughts probably ruffle your feathers.

I must admit Norm, that it does make me angry when people suggest God is causing or allowing suffering for a greater purpose. I just cannot imagine squatting down on the dirt in some squalid refugee camp somewhere in Somalia, telling a skeletal 6 year old that his parents have been raped and murdered and he is starving to death because it's all part of God's plan!

I'm often like this with my two sons. The oldest causes me a lot of grief as he is always getting into trouble. He should know better. I have given him rules to live by but if he doesn't follow the rule book then I simply have to disown him as my son. I understand it's not his fault that he was born into iniquity - I mean he didn't ask to be but because one of his ancestors ate an apple, well that's just bad luck for my son. Subsequently I have chosen to put him in a place where he will suffer and suffer for all of eternity. Not just a few years mind you, no that would be too kind, I want him to be miserable forever and a day. But he has a choice. I am going to make my younger son die on his behalf, with my younger son's consent of course. If my younger son is tortured painfully and then hung up on a cross to die, I will feel so much better. If my older son is prepared to accept that his younger brother suffered all of this pain on his behalf, then and only then, will I spare my older son from that eternal punishment. But his younger brother still has to suffer though, I couldn't possibly have it any other way. Does that make sense to anyone for me to do that to my beloved children?

7,600,000 children die every year caused by poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Or as you seem to indicate - God. I couldn't imagine such a cruel God. I know people who do believe that the God of the OT did actually order the Israelites on about a dozen occassions to commit genocide (sort of like a Tutsi/Hutu conflict but with God's nod), but again, I couldn't ever imagine a God like that.

I really enjoying reading Bishop Spong and I think he has provided so much in the way of looking at the bible through different lenses. So it is with the deepest respect for him and not in any sense ridiculing him, that I recall Margus Borg saying words to the effect that Spong is brilliant at pulling things apart, but not neccessarily as accomplished putting them back together again. Perhaps this is one of those areas that he doesn't reassemble quite as adequately.

True George. Whilst fraudulent probably could be used for some who are intentional frauds, the word doesn't really suit those who genuinely think they are a part of the healing process, albeit perhaps they actually aren't. I think that certainly some faith healing could be attributed to psychology and 'belief' that healing is possible, and that some are healed is simply terrific.

Sorry Joseph, you are correct in what you said, as obviously demonstrated by your post and my intial quoting of your post. I agree we can celebrate with Yvonne's nephew and simply be happy he is no longer afflicted. The point I was trying to make was that I think it does matter whether one wants to speak of it as a fraud or genuine because of the knock-on effect to others. Others hear the claims of healing and hope it will work for them. Should they forgo medical treatment because of such a belief, they may suffer needless harm. If they are not healed by someone who has a record of 'healing' then it can be psychologically damaging for the person who can't (won't!) be healed. Of course it is a wonderful thing that Yvonne's nephew is healed (hopefully forever), but in the context of Yvonne's questioning I think it is relevant not to just write off the event as simply a happy ending that doesn't warrant further consideration or validation. I see danger in that for the reasons I outlined earlier - others may expect the same thing. Certainly as far as Yvonne's nephew is concerned I am sure to him the important thing is his afliction is gone. Sorry if I sound like a grinch, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion thread.

The only thing I would say further to this question about the legitimacy (or not) of faith healing, is that it is a concern when people forgo professional medical treatment because they believe faith will heal them. This has had a fair bit of media attention in my part of the world where people have recently died of curable illness specifically because they forwent medical treatment due to a belief that a faith healer would heal them. Whilst in your nephew's case it is a joy that he has been healed of his affliction, I would disagree with Joseph that it doesn't really matter if the healing is a fraud or not. If it is a fraud (or he was actually healed by something else unidentified) but other people put their health in jeopardy because of such 'success' stories, then it is a concern. Actually, another thing I would say further is that usually if a faith healer doesn't successfully heal somebody, it seems (to me) to be portrayed as a problem with the 'healee' and not the 'healer' - ye of little faith. I imagine that can't be good for the person who is told they don't have enough faith so as to be healed.

Neon, That very thing was said in the paper here (Western Australia) yesterday in an article on a church that is promoting faith healing here in our state. A skeptic said "My test for faith healers is simple. We would just go along with an amputee. If God is omniscient & omnipotent he would have no problem replacing the limb, right?". Whilst I think the omniscient & omnipotent bit may not be relevant, certainly faith healing of an amputee would speak volumes. I think George is on the money when he says "a number of illnesses are psychosomatic and can be helped or 'cured' by psychological means which can include faith healing with a spiritual placebo effect". That answers it for me.

Today my family and I will enjoy our town's annual 'Crabfest'. A day of carnival, daredevil motorbike jumps, waterskiing and the world wake board championships all held on our doorstep. But the best bit of all is the culinary delights available, particulalrly those involving our own little delicacy found in our waters - the blue swimmer crab (which as you can see below are red once cooked). And if that's not enough, tomorrow I am off up to Perth to watch some Polo - the type they play whilst riding horses. A busy and fun weekend, all in all.

Best of luck Jenell. Hope it all works well for you. Cheers Paul

Absolutely! Why is homosexuality even an issue for hetro people? When I was a young churchgoer I accepted homophobia as God's will, but always wondered just what was so dangerous about it. Why weren't my fellow churchgoers equally so concerned about other sins? Looking back, it seems to me that people just adopted this homophobe view because that's what they were taught and they didn't question it. Of course it helps if one is never 'exposed' to homosexual company, because then there's no need to recognise them as just as fully human as hetros.

I hope it turns out all for the best whatever happens, Jenell. Cheers Paul

I think you've had your fair share too, Yvonne. Try to look after yourself. Cheers Paul

Well, even God's Position Description is pretty vague here!

Surely there's a Grievance Procedure you can utilise to cite any mitigating factors?

Thanks for the democracy lesson, Dutch. Much appreciated, sincerely. Of course it does help that you quote references from “one of the great intellectual exports from Australia".