Pete

I can imagine. Yet I have seen so many who insisted that they could heal me. Some prayed over me and other prayed over a tissue which I was supposed to put on my body to heal me. All it did was cause pain and frustration to a young child and a dashed hope to his parents. Many would get annoyed if you questioned them and make a sermon out of lack of faith. Nowadays I ask "show me the stats that say this works". and other than than telling me of things they had read and unverifiable examples they cannot. Medicine has to do research on many cases and that research has to be available to prove something works. I just think these faith healers need to do the same or have a case that stands up in court.

No worries friend. It is hard for gay people in many churches. I left the baptist church for similar reasons. I accepted that someone who was gay was as much a product of nature as I am. I did not believe the idea of God not loving them or that God caused them to be that way out of punishment for their "fallen ways". Most of all in their eyes I challenged the view that the bible was always right. I trained as a counsellor and wanted to learn how to be a pastoral counsellor. I was told that if a gay person came along with a problem I was to help them to not be gay before dealing with any other issue they came with. I just said that I did not believe counselling could change someone's sexuality and I just do not believe it to be a sin. I also believe it to be a betrayal of the client in that I was enforcing an agenda upon them that they did want or had come for. The sustained hostile reaction I was met with afterwards and which sent me to coventry in the church led me to question more things. Things that out of loyalty I did not question before. I remember talking to people and one of the elders would then come over and take them away from me. A guest speaker was horrified by the aggression she received because she spoke with me. We were both nurses and it seemed natural to talk about her experiences as a nurse in the troubles in Northern Ireland. I stopped going after that. Now I accept that churches differ from one another and some would have been more accepting but I just could not go back to the church. I have seen some who say they were healed of cancer by a church but their x rays sadly said different. I have seen people suffering from terrible mental illnesses who were taught that was caused by their sin. I remember one lady who was a devout baptist who had suffered terrible pain for years from cancer who eventually stopped eating and drinking and died. Her family then said she was going to hell for killing herself. I personally feel that church healing is no more than a placebo affect. I remember seeing a documentary with RIchard Dawkins in Lourds where thousands would come to be healed each year but the actual people healed were so very few that it could not justify any healing process was taking place. Most can tell of an individual who became well but they do not look at the many who did not get well or compare that with those who do not go to church. People do get healed from chronic illnesses sometimes but I do not see an increase in those who attended a church and those who do not. I expect that if sufferers were to sue churches who declared them healed when they were not we would have even less claims of success. Quote:- "Negative impact on public health[edit] Reliance on faith healing to the exclusion of other forms of treatment can have a public health impact when it reduces or eliminates access to modern medical techniques.[g][h][i] This is evident in both higher mortality rates for children[9] and in reduced life expectancy for adults.[10] Critics have also made note of serious injury that has resulted from falsely labelled "healings", where patients erroneously consider themselves cured and cease or withdraw from treatment.[3][j] For example, at least six people have died after faith healing by their church and being told they had been healed of HIV and could stop taking their medications.[80] It is the stated position of the AMA that "prayer as therapy should not delay access to traditional medical care".[77] Choosing faith healing while rejecting modern medicine can and does cause people to die needlessly.[81]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing If faith healing was so successful then surely the deaths would be less in those who went to church as opposed to those who went to hospital but the facts just do not support this. I accept that positive beliefs of any sort can help aid recovery even if it does not actually bring about that recovery. Yet until I see credible figures that support the case of faith healers then I do view them as charlatans and making a living out of tricking people who suffer. Others are welcome to disagree and I am sure some will, but I stand by this view. All I ask is show me the confirmed numbers against those who go to hospital. Professionals know we do not have all the answers but they do have the odds of recovery on their side...

The church who did say about my parents faith and my lack of healing was a Elim Pentecostal church based in Plymouth in the UK. However that was nearly 60 years ago. I also got that same opinion from a Elim church in Hull 30 years ago. The one in Hull, UK, also said the devil was present and my parents had to drive him out before anything could be done. That caused my parents to leave the church they had been in for years. Now I can accept your church maybe different but I stand by what I have said.

It brings up a point. When I had polio as a child my parents were told the reason the preacher could not heal me was because my parents did not have enough faith. I suppose according to that measure neither did he or the congregation who were present. As for snake handlers it seems many of those get bitten and it is often the minister. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665177/Snake-handling-pastor-kicked-church-buildings-owner.html I also remember being told that Richard Bandler, a co founder of NLP (non religious), managed to convince some reporters that the reason they could not walk through walls was because of their self limiting beliefs. They had a few goes before giving up. I guess its nature's way of weeding out the weak links.

http://travel.aol.co.uk/2016/03/13/man-mauled-buttocks-lions-trying-prove-god-save-him/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk%7Cdl8%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D439223 Lucky to be alive,,

Fair point (imo). According to the "Pagan Pathways" book by Harvey and Hardman some adopt a belief not because it evidently provable or even true but because a belief can help them change. I know it is debatable to some but there is such a thing as Atheist Christians who follow the philosophy of Jesus' teaching without believing him to be divine or that there is a god. In a sense it is not the belief that is important but the effect an adopted belief has on a person. Same as one can believe in Karma because they believe there is good in being loving and it has its own reward, but proving it would be another matter. Yet, I accept this belief works for some very respected people (imo)...

If you put up a chart then it presumes to me a belief that one can be charted. I was just pointing out that things are not always that simple. No offense meant. I have even tried questionnaires but I was never happy with conclusions. I have looked at many faiths but I do not fit easily in any of them. I never said I did not want to participate. Maybe there is presumptions in both of us. No offense meant. Boxes do not fit comfortably with many of us. I personally do not like boxes as they often come the assumption that I should then conform as such. I hope you can see what I mean. No dig meant.

I am not certain I like to be charted. I cannot with 100% certainty say there is a god or with 100% certainty say there is no god and nor do I believe one way or another. The other question is what god are we referring to and can it be defined enough for us all to understand without some incredible leap of faith. Can anyone prove there is a god or disprove there is a god. I just feel it is up to those who say there is a god to prove it and define the god. It is my understanding it just cannot be done. Now if we talk about the literal biblical interpretation of god then I just feel it makes no sense but that is not to deny the possibility or assert it. I suspend belief until someone can say with proof that a god exists and until then I wonder does it really matter and if it does then where is the proof that it does. Most do not prove there is a god but just quote a book made from dubious sources. I think the biggest catalyst for my doubting is fundamentalism and the lack of pluralism or proof in some of the many assertions. I am open to change and adopt a belief if there was proof but there is none that is credible or demonstrable (imo). Hence I remain neutral and just get on with my life. In my work I have to be neutral and support those I care for to practice their faith, if they have one, but not to express my view on any of it or to participate in their faith or practice. .It is a case of live and let live and until one can supply something credible that is where I stand. Chart that if you can.

Thanks Meredog

How does a person post to the Open Pulpit? There seems to be no start new topic/post button. Thanks in advance for your help.

Very much agree. It was all the insisting that everything is so and we have to trust it that led me to eventually walk away. The discussion was on suffering and you know in my job I have seen a lot. The way some would try to deny or justify it was just one step I could not take. I knew then it was not reason but just repeated dogma and would be defended to the every extreme. That and the persecution some have for gay people and some of the bible's notes on slavery and I just could not hold onto the idea that the bible is God's word from cover to cover. Anyway I am drifting. Best of luck on your course and I hope it brings many blessing.

The article presents the fulfilment of Psalm 53. I know many describe Jesus as fulfilling this but I understand the the Jews saw this as being about them rather than someone coming in another 800 years. I am with you on the business as having to justify what one is saying with the available research. It does take a person to avenues they never considered before. Dan often talks about keeping it simple and adhering to what the bible appears to be saying. I just cannot do this. However, I respect your point of view. Education is not about just what one thinks themselves but being able to think in many ways and being pluralist in recognising we do not all agree. I think the thing that eventually got me was when I began to think that no loving God could of written some of the things in the book. I know there is disagreement on this point. Yet as you say one takes the journey and sees what it brings to one. One does not have to agree with it but it does broaden one's outlook. For me it brought doubt - to others it brings faith. I do not personally dismiss it all but I just cannot accept the idea of a God as described in the bible. Yet, it is my roots. I wish the best on your course and hope what I have said does not lead others to a debate on what one should or should not believe. Respect to you..

Hi Cool. I know that the church you belong to has a strong view of Lucan's view on atonement as described in Luke. I was wonder if at the level you were studying if there was other views that may also be considered. I consider the work of people like C.H. Dodd who although acknowledge Jesus' death as essential to the divine plan also did not see it as anyway connected to the atonement. https://bible.org/seriespage/1-atonement-lucan-theology-recent-discussion I would be interested on hearing of some of these views. As you are no doubt aware I have struggle with the idea of a God who necessitated a death in order to forgive. It just seem to me to be the actions of a divine being who cannot forgive unless someone or something suffers. It sounds to me like a dysfunctional character rather than a all powerful God. I say this with respect and knowing you would disagree with my perspective but I would be interested on the views of these other theologians. Your thoughts?

Hope it goes well for you. I have a number of books on luke but I do not recommend them. You could try the Yale lectures at :- http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-9#ch0

Interesting Jonathan. There has also been big issues on the beast with 666. Some early documents use 606. I have seen this applied to the Pope, Bar codes, Micro-chipping, the illuminati, freeMasonry, the Roman Empire, Hitler, and for some they say the Jewish religious number of 7 is being applied and shows the wearer falls short of God in each aspect. Therefore 6 and not seven. I have also seen it applied to some US presidents and leaders of the UN. I have seen it applied in humour to Barney the Purple dinosaur. Mathmatical Proof that Barney is Satan Given: Barney is a CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR Prove: Barney is Satanic The Romans had no letter 'U' and used 'V' instead for printing, meaning the Roman representation for Barney would be: Extracting the Roman numerals, we have: Decimal Equivalents are: Adding those numbers produces: 666 666 is the number of the beast. Therefore, Barney is Satan. http://www.pinetree.net/humor/barneyissatan.html Although Barney is applied in jest it does show how it is extremely hard to know for sure what much of this means. Whether it had a meaning that those of the time were more aware of, I do not know. Please note my inclusion of Barney was not meant to mock but to point out that it can be applied in so many ways. Revelations is far from clear and some Christians have been applying it and asserting a meaning through centuries. With respect this shows to me that Christians and none Christians are no nearer understanding it than each other.

I was actually being gracious. Lets just presume the book is correct and then look at the countless predictions of immanent end times through history that have come and gone without incident then one can say some at least must be getting it wrong. Hold your horses next time friend.

Yep! So simple Dan that people have been getting Revelations wrong for centuries. I defy even you to explain all the beasts imagery.

True. If I was a Jew or a Christian in the times after the invasion of Jerusalem in 70AD you can bet I would want to disguise who I was and what I was saying. The Romans were murderous. Having slaughtered anyone in Jerusalem and crucifying those trying to escape and then to follow this up many brutal suppressions throughout the eastern empire. It would pay to be very cautious. (imo).

As I understand it - Revelations was written at a time of intense persecution. It seeks to talk about the church and what the writer feels are its errors. It then goes on to a near prediction and then an extreme prediction. Some say it uses visual language to hide its meaning from those who persecute. It is said to be a message of hope that there would be an end of the persecution. The language is vague and having multi interpretations (imo) and this is picked on many street preachers who wanting to impress people with fear and proof of the end times. Trouble is it can be applied to many periods of history. Thus giving some much to apply it too. Same goes when it is applied to the book of Daniel and some try to combine the predictions and make more permutations from it. However, each to their own.

Ha! found it. Its on the top instead of the bottom. Like I say I really love the clear presentation of the forum. Thanks for all the hard work.

I really like the new look on the forum. Thanks everyone. Will the Chat return?

Christianity is varied. Most would go with being a Christian by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus for their salvation. Some respect the bible's every word and some look for what has meaning or has context of the times. Sure they do not have total agreement between Christians but most recognise that the human race has a limited time on the earth before we all die. Most would agree with that as so would secular viewpoints. Christians believe they have been given a way to go forward despite this and that is found in Jesus. Hence, they try to gain understanding of the god they believe gave them that salvation and they believe one way is to study the bible. Others study the world and nature and the guiding Spirit. Some believe in creationism and others believe in evolution. Christianity is incredibly varied. Therefore I can understand where Cool is coming from even if I personally do not believe it is on a secure premise. Like I say it is not Christianity I have issue with or indeed any faith but its the dogma that some cannot see beyond that I feel threatened by. Just like Islam is nowadays is seen as a threat but the vast majority of followers are no threat at all. Its the extremists who justify terrible things by their unquestioning adherence to a flawed doctrine that are the problem (imo). Not Christians or indeed Muslims or any other faith.

I know that the previous Arch Bishop of Canterbury referred to Revelations as a horrible book that only just made it into the bible. I also know that not all Christians like Revaltions and find Revelations as a contradiction to the teachings of Paul -See:- http://www.christian-community.org/library/revelheresy.html I note that some Christians still do note accept it. The link also makes the point that revelations was only included into the canon in 508 AD and then under some protest. Still this is about what you make of the writings rather than what others think of the book of Revelations. Me - I think you know I am not impressed.

I think things are changing a bit. The trouble is, it seems, the leaders take a long time to catch up with their membership. Yet, I do not believe it is driven from within the churches or religious bodies.. It is driven by the public. If the majority of the public was for beheading witches, I am sure it would return without a whimper from the churches. I think it is a case of if they want to have members then it does not pay to be too far out of step of the public. The western public changed its views on gay people (except a few die hards) the church then begins to modify its view on gay people. You cannot tell people that your loving and caring if the majority of the public does not agree and you cannot ask them to join if your horrible and repugnant in your views. Just look at Westbro. It makes a lot of noise but only a few will join and the majority of the public will detest their speech.

However, the bible does have many examples of doing just that. Okay they say the NT changed all that but they still say that doing this was right in the OT. If I look at how the church has killed people of differing beliefs through the years since then it is hard to see the difference between ISIS. Being on a Jihad for some is fighting with oneself to overcome their bad ways and temptations. To others its killing anyone who disagrees with them. You get some bad Muslims and Christians as you do many good. (imo).