Divine Healing

[Compassionist]

I saw this video and am most impressed by this apparent divine healing. If this girl was healed by God, why doesn't God heal all Christians? I know many Christians who are ill and who have even died from various illnesses.

[JehovahsWitness]

..The goal is to be healed spiritually, to become righteous.

Exactly ; biblically'once there is a spiritual healings, any harm that comes from our fallen physical condition can be helped in God's due time. The priority must be a restored relationship with God.


JW

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course Just top up the Faith and bolstering of Religious influence. Recover, or die, that can all be explained as God answers prayer, or God's will be done.

[Compassionist]

The point being, why would God create 10 million species only to have 9.5 million of them vanish?

Why not? Some artists create canvas after canvas and throw them out or scrape them dry and start again; over and over. So what?! Maybe for the pleasure of creating, maybe to enjoy the creation for a while. Maybe just because he can. It's not a moral failing, like flipping channels, an omnipotent Gods doesnt have to sit tight and watch to the end if he doesn't want to... so again, what (if any) significance is being attached to this, even if it were true?

It's not 9.5 million out of 10 million species that are extinct. It is 9,990,000,000 out of 10,000,000,000 species that are extinct (99.9%). The remaining 10,000,000 species form the extant 0.1% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth.

Please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll

Out of the 125 billion humans who have been born so far, 117.1 billion are already dead. The remaining 7.9 billion will also die. This is a world full of suffering, injustice, and deaths. I can't decide if God is evil and real or evil and imaginary. I am sure God is not good and real. Art on a canvas is not alive and sentient. Art does not suffer and die. We suffer and die. That makes God evil (real or imaginary).

[JehovahsWitness]

The point being, why would God create 10 million species only to have 9.5 million of them vanish?

Why not? Some artists create canvas after canvas and throw them out or scrape them dry and start again; over and over. So what?! Maybe for the pleasure of creating, maybe to enjoy the creation for a while. Maybe just because he can. It's not a moral failing, like flipping channels, an omnipotent Gods doesnt have to sit tight and watch to the end if he doesn't want to... so again, what (if any) significance is being attached to this, even if it were true?

It's not 9.5 million out of 10 million species that are extinct. It is 9,990,000,000 out of 10,000,000,000 species that are extinct (99.9%). The remaining 10,000,000 species form the extant 0.1% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth.

Yes okay I understand that, billions, gazillions, katrillions... but so WHAT?!

Why would allowing species to go extinct be significant? I take it you are trying to imply creating species and allowing them to die out implies some kind of moral failing in some way, can you explain what that would be.

God should not have let species go extinct because .....(WHY??!)

[Compassionist]

The point being, why would God create 10 million species only to have 9.5 million of them vanish?

Why not? Some artists create canvas after canvas and throw them out or scrape them dry and start again; over and over. So what?! Maybe for the pleasure of creating, maybe to enjoy the creation for a while. Maybe just because he can. It's not a moral failing, like flipping channels, an omnipotent Gods doesnt have to sit tight and watch to the end if he doesn't want to... so again, what (if any) significance is being attached to this, even if it were true?

It's not 9.5 million out of 10 million species that are extinct. It is 9,990,000,000 out of 10,000,000,000 species that are extinct (99.9%). The remaining 10,000,000 species form the extant 0.1% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth.

Yes okay I understand that, billions, gazillions, katrillions... but so WHAT?!

Why would allowing species to go extinct be significant? I take it you are trying to imply creating species and allowing them to die out implies some kind of moral failing in some way, can you explain what that would be.

God should not have let species go extinct because .....(WHY??!)

All living things should be forever happy if there is a loving God who made them. It would be a testimony to God's realness and goodness. The fact that this world is full of suffering, injustice, and deaths indicate that God is not real and good.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes okay I understand that, billions, gazillions, katrillions... but so WHAT?!

Why would allowing species to go extinct be significant? I take it you are trying to imply creating species and allowing them to die out implies some kind of moral failing in some way, can you explain what that would be.

God should not have let species go extinct because .....(WHY??!)

All living things should be forever happy if there is a loving God who made them. It would be a testimony to God's realness and goodness.

Firstly, thank you for understanding the question and attempting to answer it.


So your reasoning on this is :all animals should have been granted immortality? Would this extent to insects? Fruit flies? What about microscopie organisms? Immortality for all living things?


Please confirm.



JW

[brunumb]

All living things should be forever happy if there is a loving God who made them. It would be a testimony to God's realness and goodness. The fact that this world is full of suffering, injustice, and deaths indicate that God is not real and good.

That all says to me that God could not have created this world. The life and death cycle that exists is not consistent with a loving creator god and is fully consistent with something that evolved as a consequence of the properties of matter and energy. If one takes God out of the picture it all makes far more sense to me and most of the questions we have just disappear. Those that remain may never be answered because we are really quite limited in terms of intelligence despite being the smartest critters on the planet.

[TRANSPONDER]

All living things should be forever happy if there is a loving God who made them. It would be a testimony to God's realness and goodness. The fact that this world is full of suffering, injustice, and deaths indicate that God is not real and good.

That all says to me that God could not have created this world. The life and death cycle that exists is not consistent with a loving creator god and is fully consistent with something that evolved as a consequence of the properties of matter and energy. If one takes God out of the picture it all makes far more sense to me and most of the questions we have just disappear. Those that remain may never be answered because we are really quite limited in terms of intelligence despite being the smartest critters on the planet.

I am still a goddless heathen and I endorse this message,as well.

Yes okay I understand that, billions, gazillions, katrillions... but so WHAT?!

Why would allowing species to go extinct be significant? I take it you are trying to imply creating species and allowing them to die out implies some kind of moral failing in some way, can you explain what that would be.

God should not have let species go extinct because .....(WHY??!)

All living things should be forever happy if there is a loving God who made them. It would be a testimony to God's realness and goodness.

Firstly, thank you for understanding the question and attempting to answer it.


So your reasoning on this is :all animals should have been granted immortality? Would this extent to insects? Fruit flies? What about microscopie organisms? Immortality for all living things?


Please confirm.



JW

It's a theological, if not a logical, conclusion. Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience. If he ate the fruit, he would die (1). The apologetic of the Ark and Flood maintains that the rest of Creation also had to go, because Adam's fall had dragged down the rest of creation with him, which up to then had been sinless (T.Rex ate grass and gave rides to kiddies) and thus presumably did not die and went to heaven to provide heavenly animals, heavenly grass and flowers and presumably heavenly flea bites and plague, and which included, Baryma - bug, Fly -kind and a breeding - pair of Bacteria to supra -evolved to make all the plagues between the time the Ark was opened and Djozer built the first pyramid.-

(1) I'll leave closed the wormcan of the 'spiritual death' apologetic.

[JehovahsWitness]

It's a theological, if not a logical, conclusion. Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience. If he ate the fruit, he would die (1). The apologetic of the Ark and Flood maintains that the rest of Creation also had to go, because Adam's fall had dragged down the rest of creation with him, which up to then had been sinless (T.Rex ate grass and gave rides to kiddies) and thus presumably did not die and went to heaven to provide heavenly animals, heavenly grass and flowers and presumably heavenly flea bites and plague, and which included, Baryma - bug, Fly -kind and a breeding - pair of Bacteria to supra -evolved to make all the plagues between the time the Ark was opened and Djozer built the first pyramid.-

(1) I'll leave closed the wormcan of the 'spiritual death' apologetic.

None off this is biblical.

• Animals are never spoken of as being sinners: this is logical a as they are not capable of making moral choices

• The "world" that the bible speaks of that was introduced to sin by Adam, refers to the world of mankind ie human civilisation not the planet of all living organisms.

• Adam passed on sin to his descendants ( biblically animals do not descend from humans and are thus free from inherited sinfulness)

• There'is no indication in scripture animals, insects or microscropic organisms were created immortal

• The animals killed during the global flood were never accused of sin nor is there any suggestion they were killed due to their wickedness (which is logical since animals are not inherently "wicked" they merely follow their instincts)

• " grass and flowers" and other inanimate objects are part of God's creation, pronounced "very good" by their maker and never judged otherwise in scripture (which is logical since inanimate objects are not capable of making the moral choices or the independent action essential components of sin)

• Plagues, bacteria, viruses and infections are chemical reactions and/or physiological phenonema which carry absolutely no moral autonomy and are of themselves not wicked

CONCLUSION Adams fall as did "drag down the rest of creation" in that, (rather like negligent or abusive dogs owners cause suffering for the animals under their charge), Adams actions lead indirectly to descendants who would not respect the planet or their God given order to take care of the animals. That said, animals and inanimate objects were not created in the bible narrative to live forever and Adam did not (nor could he) cause them to die through sin

[TRANSPONDER]

I think you urgently need to go back to the drawing -board on that one, JW. If what God had made was very good, then there can be no wickedness in critters unless God put it there. Yes? If He did not put wickedness instincts there, they could not sin or if he did put it there, it was God's fault they were 'wicked' (even if reason and Choice somehow means that Adam isn't as excused). Therefore God destroying the critters is a vile and reprehensible act (to anyone who has any consideration for critters) unless they became wicked through Adam's fall.

which is what some Bible apologists argue and it is at least a sight better than implying that they were inherently wicked and Adam's fall was nothing to do with it.