|
|
 | | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:29:13 -0800 |
|
|
 |
"pedro" wrote in message
news:IuFGd.121177$K7.20535@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
>
>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>news:v_vGd.120897$K7.110916@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mark T" wrote in message
>>>>news:41ea2ae5@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Chuck Stamford" chucked:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Joining the truly brain dead brigade
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>But it's becoming repetitive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Brain-dead fundamentalists like you, chuck, need only join it once. As
>>>>>an outsider and professional educator, I have often tried to help teach
>>>>>poor souls who are part of this demented group to think in at least an
>>>>>elementary manner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I know you for the liar that you are. You fear reason as you fear God
>>>>and
>>>>all you see as a threat to the way in which you want to live. You are a
>>>>beast, masquerading as a man, and your bitterness will not save you.
>>>>
>>>>Chuck Stamford
>>>>
>>>>
>>>All true Chuck. But he's happily patted on the back by our resident
>>>pastor
>>>Rowland Croucher, Athanasius, Wawence, and the rest of their mates.
>>>Crazy!
>>>And to pinch one of Wawences fav sayings- 'from where I stand'- there's a
>>>lot of evil and deception in the Christian Church. Why would anyone in
>>>their right mind want to be a part of it????
>>>
>>
>>Because all of us whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly are
>>able to see that what you're referring to here is merely a group of
>>people, not the "Christian Church". It's takes a heck of a lot more to be
>>a member of Christ's Body than calling one's self a name. And even those
>>of us who are members by faith in the only Son of God made flesh remain
>>fallible. There will be differences between us. There has to be. God
>>does not stamp us out with a cookie cutter, and we all live different
>>lives, led by the Holy Spirit through different experiences, and into
>>different callings and ministries within that Body.
>>
>>But there is one thing that unites us all, and that is the love of God
>>that makes us all one in the Spirit, and manifests as the love we have for
>>one another. However, true love is sometimes difficult to recognize as
>>well. One must have experienced it from God to recognize it in others;
>>have recognized one's own sins to know just how sin can distort this love
>>in the way others manifest this love, even when they truly have this love
>>dwelling in them.
>>
>>Those you've mentioned by name above, I believe may well be true members
>>of Christ's Body, even though they all seem to suffer from one significant
>>blind spot or another in the way they practice their faith and live their
>>lives. However, Mark, I can safely say, is no Christian.
>>
>
> Of course. In fact I was one of the first to try to make ppl see this when
> there were those praising him and calling him their "dear brother/sister
> in Christ". There's no escaping the fact that no one can deny that Christ
> was God and call themself a christian. There may be dissent on peripheral
> matters of faith, but on the essential truths, there can be none. Jesus
> was God in the flesh who died on the cross for our sins, or else it's all
> bunkum!
And this is why I, and so many other insist on other beliefs as "essential"
to the Christian faith...because they are all entailed from this one
foundational belief; that Jesus Christ is the Godman union, the restoration
of creation back to God that was lost in Adam's sin. Everything follows
from the fact that "...God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself".
>
>> His god is his belly. He fancies himself "thought provoking", but it is
>> only a conceit in a long list of conceits that taken together comprise
>> what we refer to as Mark Tindall. He is pride personified, and a
>> betrayer of Christ. He represents nothing but himself, and his benighted
>> and perverted version of Enlightenment thinking; an epistemological
>> school of thought that even held by great minds (those to which Mark's is
>> a poor relation living on the wrong side of the tracks) has been
>> discredited thirty years ago. He is not a thinker, he's not a Christian.
>> He just has a computer and too much time on his hands. As things stand
>> in his life today, he's about as significant to the Body of Christ on
>> earth as a small bump in the road. The only reason he gets as much
>> attention as he does from Christians is our eternal optimism; our belief
>> that where there is breath there is hope.
>
> A good summation.
>
>
>>We can't resist trying out new ways to try and get him to take a look
>>inward, and see that he is empty.
>>
>
> I have given up. I have tried everything.. humour, reason, using his own
> tactics.. ridicule, derision, insult, abuse, etc., Nothing works.. it's
> just hate, hate, hate, from him. I just ignore him now. His fate will be
> what it is.
My time in the lists has come to an end as well; at least so far as Mark is
concerned. Tonight I made the mistake of showing some of Mark's posts to my
wife. When I began this endeavor to present Christian apologetics, as I
know them to be, in various newsgroups, I made my fleece (remember Gideon?)
before the Lord my wife's moral support as I did. She has been willing to
give me that support on one condition: that I NEVER share personal
information capable of easily identifying our family to anyone I encounter
on Usenet. It has been the one "law" that is inviolate...up to tonight.
After she read what Mark had to say in the three or four posts she saw, she
turned to me with the weirdest look on her face and told me, "This man is
sick; I mean really sick. You can pray for his soul, and I will too, but if
you ever answer another one of his posts, I will no longer support you in
what you're doing here."
So now my ministry, such as it is, runs on two laws. It's probably just as
well, and just in time. I was beginning to enjoy giving him tit for tat
these last couple of days, and I doubt that enjoyment arose out of the
contentment one finds in doing God's will. It had that kind of "I am flesh,
hear me roar" feel to it that always seems to leave me with a bad after
taste. So once again the good Lord has used my helpmate to guide my steps
and keep me on the path, or so I'm judging the case to be in faith. I just
pray that I'm the last obstacle God needed to remove before doing his
glorious work of salvation in Mark's life. And I want to thank you for
standing up for me as you have in the past; I know doing so comes with a
price to be paid, and it blesses me you've been willing to pay it.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
>
>
>>Just do me a favor, Pete. Don't let yourself fall into the enemy's trap
>>of judging the great salvation available to all of us by the grace of God
>>through faith in his Son by those who only know enough about it to use the
>>terminology and cut and paste from the results of their Bible software
>>search engine.
>>
>>God bless
>>
>>Chuck Stamford
>
>
> --
>
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -----
> http://pedro.spyw.com
> The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
> 'Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday'
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Mark T | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:16:03 +1100 |
|
|
| "Chuck Stamford" wrote:
> And this is why I, and so many other insist on other beliefs as
> "essential" to the Christian faith...
What you insist and what is the truth may be two different things.
> My time in the lists has come to an end as well; at least so far as Mark
> is
> concerned.
Bye-bye. Good riddance. I can now mock your silly thoughts and subvert
your "ministry" without you knowing.
> "This man is sick; I mean really sick. You can pray for his soul, and I
> will too, but if
> you ever answer another one of his posts, I will no longer support you in
> what you're doing here."
Fundamentalists are like that.
> contentment one finds in doing God's will
It's a pity you don't do that. God's will is not fundamentalism and
adherence to a fallible man made book.
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:12:46 GMT |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
>"pedro" wrote in message
>news:IuFGd.121177$K7.20535@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>>news:v_vGd.120897$K7.110916@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark T" wrote in message
>>>>>news:41ea2ae5@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Chuck Stamford" chucked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Joining the truly brain dead brigade
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But it's becoming repetitive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brain-dead fundamentalists like you, chuck, need only join it once. As
>>>>>>an outsider and professional educator, I have often tried to help teach
>>>>>>poor souls who are part of this demented group to think in at least an
>>>>>>elementary manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I know you for the liar that you are. You fear reason as you fear God
>>>>>and
>>>>>all you see as a threat to the way in which you want to live. You are a
>>>>>beast, masquerading as a man, and your bitterness will not save you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Chuck Stamford
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>All true Chuck. But he's happily patted on the back by our resident
>>>>pastor
>>>>Rowland Croucher, Athanasius, Wawence, and the rest of their mates.
>>>>Crazy!
>>>>And to pinch one of Wawences fav sayings- 'from where I stand'- there's a
>>>>lot of evil and deception in the Christian Church. Why would anyone in
>>>>their right mind want to be a part of it????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Because all of us whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly are
>>>able to see that what you're referring to here is merely a group of
>>>people, not the "Christian Church". It's takes a heck of a lot more to be
>>>a member of Christ's Body than calling one's self a name. And even those
>>>of us who are members by faith in the only Son of God made flesh remain
>>>fallible. There will be differences between us. There has to be. God
>>>does not stamp us out with a cookie cutter, and we all live different
>>>lives, led by the Holy Spirit through different experiences, and into
>>>different callings and ministries within that Body.
>>>
>>>But there is one thing that unites us all, and that is the love of God
>>>that makes us all one in the Spirit, and manifests as the love we have for
>>>one another. However, true love is sometimes difficult to recognize as
>>>well. One must have experienced it from God to recognize it in others;
>>>have recognized one's own sins to know just how sin can distort this love
>>>in the way others manifest this love, even when they truly have this love
>>>dwelling in them.
>>>
>>>Those you've mentioned by name above, I believe may well be true members
>>>of Christ's Body, even though they all seem to suffer from one significant
>>>blind spot or another in the way they practice their faith and live their
>>>lives. However, Mark, I can safely say, is no Christian.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Of course. In fact I was one of the first to try to make ppl see this when
>>there were those praising him and calling him their "dear brother/sister
>>in Christ". There's no escaping the fact that no one can deny that Christ
>>was God and call themself a christian. There may be dissent on peripheral
>>matters of faith, but on the essential truths, there can be none. Jesus
>>was God in the flesh who died on the cross for our sins, or else it's all
>>bunkum!
>>
>>
>
>And this is why I, and so many other insist on other beliefs as "essential"
>to the Christian faith...because they are all entailed from this one
>foundational belief; that Jesus Christ is the Godman union, the restoration
>of creation back to God that was lost in Adam's sin. Everything follows
>from the fact that "...God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself".
>
>
Yes, Chuck I agree. Denying the deity of Christ leaves the door open for
dissolving other core Christian beliefs, and dismantling the Christian
Faith, which of course is what certain individuals here are attempting
to do.
>>> His god is his belly. He fancies himself "thought provoking", but it is
>>>only a conceit in a long list of conceits that taken together comprise
>>>what we refer to as Mark Tindall. He is pride personified, and a
>>>betrayer of Christ. He represents nothing but himself, and his benighted
>>>and perverted version of Enlightenment thinking; an epistemological
>>>school of thought that even held by great minds (those to which Mark's is
>>>a poor relation living on the wrong side of the tracks) has been
>>>discredited thirty years ago. He is not a thinker, he's not a Christian.
>>>He just has a computer and too much time on his hands. As things stand
>>>in his life today, he's about as significant to the Body of Christ on
>>>earth as a small bump in the road. The only reason he gets as much
>>>attention as he does from Christians is our eternal optimism; our belief
>>>that where there is breath there is hope.
>>>
>>>
>>A good summation.
>>
>>
>>
>>>We can't resist trying out new ways to try and get him to take a look
>>>inward, and see that he is empty.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I have given up. I have tried everything.. humour, reason, using his own
>>tactics.. ridicule, derision, insult, abuse, etc., Nothing works.. it's
>>just hate, hate, hate, from him. I just ignore him now. His fate will be
>>what it is.
>>
>>
>
>My time in the lists has come to an end as well; at least so far as Mark is
>concerned. Tonight I made the mistake of showing some of Mark's posts to my
>wife. When I began this endeavor to present Christian apologetics, as I
>know them to be, in various newsgroups, I made my fleece (remember Gideon?)
>
>
Not really. I don't have a very good knowledge of the bible, especially
the Old Testament.
>before the Lord my wife's moral support as I did. She has been willing to
>give me that support on one condition: that I NEVER share personal
>information capable of easily identifying our family to anyone I encounter
>on Usenet.
>
A VERY good policy.. especially in view of a current situation here.
>It has been the one "law" that is inviolate...up to tonight.
>
>After she read what Mark had to say in the three or four posts she saw, she
>turned to me with the weirdest look on her face and told me, "This man is
>sick; I mean really sick. You can pray for his soul, and I will too, but if
>you ever answer another one of his posts, I will no longer support you in
>what you're doing here."
>
>So now my ministry, such as it is, runs on two laws. It's probably just as
>well, and just in time. I was beginning to enjoy giving him tit for tat
>these last couple of days, and I doubt that enjoyment arose out of the
>contentment one finds in doing God's will. It had that kind of "I am flesh,
>hear me roar" feel to it that always seems to leave me with a bad after
>taste. So once again the good Lord has used my helpmate to guide my steps
>and keep me on the path, or so I'm judging the case to be in faith.
>
I could do with one of those. :(
>I just pray that I'm the last obstacle God needed to remove before doing his
>glorious work of salvation in Mark's life. And I want to thank you for
>standing up for me as you have in the past; I know doing so comes with a
>price to be paid, and it blesses me you've been willing to pay it.
>
>God bless
>
>Chuck Stamford
>
>
Thanks Chuck. I trust you will still continue to contribute. You are one
of the few voices of sense and reason who I enjoy reading in this
madhouse, and I always look for your name. But then I don't always read
when I see that tiny scroll box. (which means of course a very long
post!). Oh well..
But it's certainly been a madhouse here in the last few days! There's
been an issue between Abby and Vera, that probably won't interest you,
so I won't go into it. Lawrence is still denying that he tried to cause
you to believe that the 'reconciliation' between him and Abby Abby/Mark
involved agreement on previously disputed matters of faith- despite even
her testimony to the contrary. Of course we know better, but the
Tindolls are chirping his praise! I can't be bothered with him anymore.
You know.. If Lawrence were God, and all things were possible for him,
every time we grabbed a history book off the shelf it would tell a
different story! :)
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'The buck doesn't even slow down here!'
p's.. But what does your wife say about my posts?? :)
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:08:29 -0800 |
|
|
|
"pedro" wrote in message
news:OLnHd.124301$K7.11408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>news:IuFGd.121177$K7.20535@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>>>news:v_vGd.120897$K7.110916@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>All true Chuck. But he's happily patted on the back by our resident
>>>>>pastor
>>>>>Rowland Croucher, Athanasius, Wawence, and the rest of their mates.
>>>>>Crazy!
>>>>>And to pinch one of Wawences fav sayings- 'from where I stand'- there's
>>>>>a
>>>>>lot of evil and deception in the Christian Church. Why would anyone in
>>>>>their right mind want to be a part of it????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Because all of us whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly are
>>>>able to see that what you're referring to here is merely a group of
>>>>people, not the "Christian Church". It's takes a heck of a lot more to
>>>>be
>>>>a member of Christ's Body than calling one's self a name. And even
>>>>those
>>>>of us who are members by faith in the only Son of God made flesh remain
>>>>fallible. There will be differences between us. There has to be. God
>>>>does not stamp us out with a cookie cutter, and we all live different
>>>>lives, led by the Holy Spirit through different experiences, and into
>>>>different callings and ministries within that Body.
>>>>
>>>>But there is one thing that unites us all, and that is the love of God
>>>>that makes us all one in the Spirit, and manifests as the love we have
>>>>for
>>>>one another. However, true love is sometimes difficult to recognize as
>>>>well. One must have experienced it from God to recognize it in others;
>>>>have recognized one's own sins to know just how sin can distort this
>>>>love
>>>>in the way others manifest this love, even when they truly have this
>>>>love
>>>>dwelling in them.
>>>>
>>>>Those you've mentioned by name above, I believe may well be true members
>>>>of Christ's Body, even though they all seem to suffer from one
>>>>significant
>>>>blind spot or another in the way they practice their faith and live
>>>>their
>>>>lives. However, Mark, I can safely say, is no Christian.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Of course. In fact I was one of the first to try to make ppl see this
>>>when
>>>there were those praising him and calling him their "dear brother/sister
>>>in Christ". There's no escaping the fact that no one can deny that Christ
>>>was God and call themself a christian. There may be dissent on peripheral
>>>matters of faith, but on the essential truths, there can be none. Jesus
>>>was God in the flesh who died on the cross for our sins, or else it's all
>>>bunkum!
>>>
>>
>>And this is why I, and so many other insist on other beliefs as
>>"essential" to the Christian faith...because they are all entailed from
>>this one foundational belief; that Jesus Christ is the Godman union, the
>>restoration of creation back to God that was lost in Adam's sin.
>>Everything follows from the fact that "...God was in Christ, reconciling
>>the world to himself".
>>
>
> Yes, Chuck I agree. Denying the deity of Christ leaves the door open for
> dissolving other core Christian beliefs, and dismantling the Christian
> Faith, which of course is what certain individuals here are attempting to
> do.
>
>
>>>> His god is his belly. He fancies himself "thought provoking", but it
>>>> is
>>>>only a conceit in a long list of conceits that taken together comprise
>>>>what we refer to as Mark Tindall. He is pride personified, and a
>>>>betrayer of Christ. He represents nothing but himself, and his
>>>>benighted
>>>>and perverted version of Enlightenment thinking; an epistemological
>>>>school of thought that even held by great minds (those to which Mark's
>>>>is
>>>>a poor relation living on the wrong side of the tracks) has been
>>>>discredited thirty years ago. He is not a thinker, he's not a
>>>>Christian.
>>>>He just has a computer and too much time on his hands. As things stand
>>>>in his life today, he's about as significant to the Body of Christ on
>>>>earth as a small bump in the road. The only reason he gets as much
>>>>attention as he does from Christians is our eternal optimism; our belief
>>>>that where there is breath there is hope.
>>>>
>>>A good summation.
>>>
>>>
>>>>We can't resist trying out new ways to try and get him to take a look
>>>>inward, and see that he is empty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I have given up. I have tried everything.. humour, reason, using his own
>>>tactics.. ridicule, derision, insult, abuse, etc., Nothing works.. it's
>>>just hate, hate, hate, from him. I just ignore him now. His fate will be
>>>what it is.
>>>
>>
>>My time in the lists has come to an end as well; at least so far as Mark
>>is
>>concerned. Tonight I made the mistake of showing some of Mark's posts to
>>my
>>wife. When I began this endeavor to present Christian apologetics, as I
>>know them to be, in various newsgroups, I made my fleece (remember
>>Gideon?)
>>
>
> Not really. I don't have a very good knowledge of the bible, especially
> the Old Testament.
Gideon is a character in the Book of Judges (beginning in chapter six) in
the Old Testament. He lived during the time between the Israelites
conquering Canaan (however, without completely destroying *all* the pagan
tribes that lived there) under Joshua (the successor of Moses), and the time
when the Israelites adopted a monarchy as their form of government (the
books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles).
During this period in their history, a time span of several hundred years,
the Israelites were from time to time overcome by their pagan neighbors, who
would then put them under some form of subjugation: tribute, periodic
raiding of crops, sporadic slavery here and there, the kind of thing ancient
Near Eastern dominant pagan cultures normally did to subservient ones. And
during Gideon's life was one of these times in the histroy of Israel.
In any case, when Gideon was a young man, God spoke to him and told him that
he (God) had chosen Gideon to lead an army of Israelites to liberate the
nation from under the hand of the Midianites, the contemporary oppressors of
God's people. Gideon was at a loss as to why God had chosen him; so much so
that he was doubtful that it was God he was speaking to, and who was
speaking to him. He was pretty sure, but not positive. So he asked for a
sign, and the sign was that he (Gideon) would lay a sheep skin on the ground
outside overnight, and if in the morning the sheep skin was wet with dew,
and the grass around it was dry, then Gideon would know it was God who was
sending him into battle, and that he could then fight with confidence in
victory. There's a little more detail here, but this is the basic, and
relevant context of my using the word. However, I'm NOT making any analogy
between my wife's opinions and a damp sheep skin! I guess the proper amount
of imagination is needed here.
>
>
>>before the Lord my wife's moral support as I did. She has been willing to
>>give me that support on one condition: that I NEVER share personal
>>information capable of easily identifying our family to anyone I encounter
>>on Usenet.
>
> A VERY good policy.. especially in view of a current situation here.
>
>
>>It has been the one "law" that is inviolate...up to tonight.
>>
>>After she read what Mark had to say in the three or four posts she saw,
>>she
>>turned to me with the weirdest look on her face and told me, "This man is
>>sick; I mean really sick. You can pray for his soul, and I will too, but
>>if
>>you ever answer another one of his posts, I will no longer support you in
>>what you're doing here."
>>
>>So now my ministry, such as it is, runs on two laws. It's probably just
>>as
>>well, and just in time. I was beginning to enjoy giving him tit for tat
>>these last couple of days, and I doubt that enjoyment arose out of the
>>contentment one finds in doing God's will. It had that kind of "I am
>>flesh,
>>hear me roar" feel to it that always seems to leave me with a bad after
>>taste. So once again the good Lord has used my helpmate to guide my steps
>>and keep me on the path, or so I'm judging the case to be in faith.
>>
>
> I could do with one of those. :(
Well...?
>
>>I just pray that I'm the last obstacle God needed to remove before doing
>>his
>>glorious work of salvation in Mark's life. And I want to thank you for
>>standing up for me as you have in the past; I know doing so comes with a
>>price to be paid, and it blesses me you've been willing to pay it.
>>
>>God bless
>>
>>Chuck Stamford
>>
>
> Thanks Chuck. I trust you will still continue to contribute. You are one
> of the few voices of sense and reason who I enjoy reading in this
> madhouse, and I always look for your name. But then I don't always read
> when I see that tiny scroll box. (which means of course a very long
> post!). Oh well..
>
> But it's certainly been a madhouse here in the last few days! There's been
> an issue between Abby and Vera, that probably won't interest you, so I
> won't go into it.
I've read a few posts from each, and concerned would be a better word. But
you're right, a few was all I could handle. My heart breaks for them both.
Lawrence is still denying that he tried to cause
> you to believe that the 'reconciliation' between him and Abby Abby/Mark
> involved agreement on previously disputed matters of faith- despite even
> her testimony to the contrary. Of course we know better, but the Tindolls
> are chirping his praise!
Some of them would do that if he confessed to murdering someone.
> I can't be bothered with him anymore. You know.. If Lawrence were God,
> and all things were possible for him, every time we grabbed a history book
> off the shelf it would tell a different story! :)
Ah, yes, but then the important question would be, would Lawrence, for his
good pleasure, allow us to remember the defunct history as we studied to
active history? And as a follow on: would we have several history semester
tests to cram for, or just the one?
>
>
>
> --
>
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -----
> http://pedro.spyw.com
> The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
> 'The buck doesn't even slow down here!'
>
>
> p's.. But what does your wife say about my posts?? :)
Pete, I don't make a habit of sharing my posting experience's with my wife.
She doesn't really understand my spending the time doing it, but she's
satisfied that I'm doing what I believe God wants me to do, and that's
enough for her. The other night was only one of maybe two or three other
times I've shared with her what someone else has actually said to me in a
newsgroup, and the others were both early on. So she hasn't seen any of
your posts, but I'm sure if she did, you'd probably be in big trouble!
If you want me to explain that for you some other time, I'll be glad to, but
I can see by the old scroll box in the corner it's time to quit. ;-)
God bless
Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:37:54 +1100 |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "pedro" wrote in message
> news:OLnHd.124301$K7.11408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> I can't be bothered with him anymore. You know.. If Lawrence were God,
>>and all things were possible for him, every time we grabbed a history book
>>off the shelf it would tell a different story! :)
>
>
> Ah, yes, but then the important question would be, would Lawrence, for his
> good pleasure, allow us to remember the defunct history as we studied to
> active history? And as a follow on: would we have several history semester
> tests to cram for, or just the one?
Now, now, Chuck. This doesn't demonstrate you *care*. This demonstrates
a propensity to snipe at people and stab them in the back when they're
not looking..
You said you sought the best for me. This testimony contradicts that.
What have you to say for yourself ?
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:32:46 -0800 |
|
|
|
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
news:41ee1c35$1_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "pedro" wrote in message
>> news:OLnHd.124301$K7.11408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> I can't be bothered with him anymore. You know.. If Lawrence were God,
>>>and all things were possible for him, every time we grabbed a history
>>>book
>>>off the shelf it would tell a different story! :)
>>
>>
>> Ah, yes, but then the important question would be, would Lawrence, for
>> his
>> good pleasure, allow us to remember the defunct history as we studied to
>> active history? And as a follow on: would we have several history
>> semester
>> tests to cram for, or just the one?
>
> Now, now, Chuck. This doesn't demonstrate you *care*. This demonstrates
> a propensity to snipe at people and stab them in the back when they're
> not looking..
>
> You said you sought the best for me. This testimony contradicts that.
>
> What have you to say for yourself ?
First of all, I'd have to say it takes a pretty good imagination to think
I'm talking behind your back when it's done in a public newsgroup and I'd
have to be in a coma not to have noticed you read pretty much everything I
post (whether it's directed your way or not) in any thread we are both
posting to.
Second, Pete's got a valid point. Neither of us are the first to notice you
have this NEED to argue, no matter what's actually said, so long as the
right person is saying it. His counterfactual above was to highlight that
you will sacrifice consistency to this need if it becomes necessary; and it
has become necessary on many occasions.
Third, what I wrote, although I went along with Pete's original and
substituted your name for "God" in what I wrote, wasn't about you at all. I
was simply asking Pete a philosphical poser; a little food for thought.
Except for using your name, I wasn't even thinking about you as I formulated
the questions. I do think about you a lot, Lawrence, but this just wasn't
one of those times...at least not in any meaningful sense of the word
"think". Sorry.
Fourth and final. I won't explain myself to you again like this if you ever
ask me to by accusing me of something that impugnes my personal integrity
first. I'm not the devil, and I'm not going to respond to you when your
question insinuates that I am.
Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:48:59 +1100 |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
> news:41ee1c35$1_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>
>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>>news:OLnHd.124301$K7.11408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>>I can't be bothered with him anymore. You know.. If Lawrence were God,
>>>>and all things were possible for him, every time we grabbed a history
>>>>book
>>>>off the shelf it would tell a different story! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, yes, but then the important question would be, would Lawrence, for
>>>his
>>>good pleasure, allow us to remember the defunct history as we studied to
>>>active history? And as a follow on: would we have several history
>>>semester
>>>tests to cram for, or just the one?
>>
>>Now, now, Chuck. This doesn't demonstrate you *care*. This demonstrates
>>a propensity to snipe at people and stab them in the back when they're
>>not looking..
>>
>>You said you sought the best for me. This testimony contradicts that.
>>
>>What have you to say for yourself ?
>
>
> First of all, I'd have to say it takes a pretty good imagination to think
> I'm talking behind your back when it's done in a public newsgroup and I'd
> have to be in a coma not to have noticed you read pretty much everything I
> post (whether it's directed your way or not) in any thread we are both
> posting to.
You posit that I was using a literal intepretation of stab them in the
back. I wasn't - it was rhetorical and allegorical.
> Second, Pete's got a valid point. Neither of us are the first to notice you
> have this NEED to argue, no matter what's actually said, so long as the
> right person is saying it. His counterfactual above was to highlight that
> you will sacrifice consistency to this need if it becomes necessary; and it
> has become necessary on many occasions.
Where have I sacrificed consistency ?
If you or Pedro can neither supply proof or demonstrate your words, you
destroy your own integrity.
Lemme guess, this is going to be like your challenge which you weaseled
out of, and the case you haven't answered in preference for attacking me ?
> Third, what I wrote, although I went along with Pete's original and
> substituted your name for "God" in what I wrote, wasn't about you at all. I
> was simply asking Pete a philosphical poser; a little food for thought.
> Except for using your name, I wasn't even thinking about you as I formulated
> the questions. I do think about you a lot, Lawrence, but this just wasn't
> one of those times...at least not in any meaningful sense of the word
> "think". Sorry.
Finally an apology. They seem few and far between from you.
> Fourth and final. I won't explain myself to you again like this if you ever
> ask me to by accusing me of something that impugnes my personal integrity
> first. I'm not the devil, and I'm not going to respond to you when your
> question insinuates that I am.
How about when your question insinuates I take drugs ?
How about when your question insinuates that I'm delusional ?
How about your theological position which, in essence, states that God's
conviction *cannot* bring right relationship between those inside the
faith and those outside it ?
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:16:15 GMT |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
>"pedro" wrote in message
>news:OLnHd.124301$K7.11408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>>news:IuFGd.121177$K7.20535@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Gideon is a character in the Book of Judges (beginning in chapter six) in
>the Old Testament. He lived during the time between the Israelites
>conquering Canaan (however, without completely destroying *all* the pagan
>tribes that lived there) under Joshua (the successor of Moses), and the time
>when the Israelites adopted a monarchy as their form of government (the
>books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles).
>
>During this period in their history, a time span of several hundred years,
>the Israelites were from time to time overcome by their pagan neighbors, who
>would then put them under some form of subjugation: tribute, periodic
>raiding of crops, sporadic slavery here and there, the kind of thing ancient
>Near Eastern dominant pagan cultures normally did to subservient ones. And
>during Gideon's life was one of these times in the histroy of Israel.
>
>In any case, when Gideon was a young man, God spoke to him and told him that
>he (God) had chosen Gideon to lead an army of Israelites to liberate the
>nation from under the hand of the Midianites, the contemporary oppressors of
>God's people. Gideon was at a loss as to why God had chosen him; so much so
>that he was doubtful that it was God he was speaking to, and who was
>speaking to him. He was pretty sure, but not positive. So he asked for a
>sign, and the sign was that he (Gideon) would lay a sheep skin on the ground
>outside overnight, and if in the morning the sheep skin was wet with dew,
>and the grass around it was dry, then Gideon would know it was God who was
>sending him into battle, and that he could then fight with confidence in
>victory. There's a little more detail here, but this is the basic, and
>relevant context of my using the word. However, I'm NOT making any analogy
>between my wife's opinions and a damp sheep skin! I guess the proper amount
>of imagination is needed here.
>
>
But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to
doubt the truth of such stories??
>>But it's certainly been a madhouse here in the last few days! There's been
>>an issue between Abby and Vera, that probably won't interest you, so I
>>won't go into it.
>>
>>
>
>I've read a few posts from each, and concerned would be a better word. But
>you're right, a few was all I could handle. My heart breaks for them both.
>
>
I have offered Abby an apology. I was a bit cruel to her today, and said
some things that hurt her too much. Unfortunately this medium makes it
too easy to say things to ppl we would never say if they were standing
in front of us.
>>p's.. But what does your wife say about my posts?? :)
>>
>>
>
>Pete, I don't make a habit of sharing my posting experience's with my wife.
>She doesn't really understand my spending the time doing it, but she's
>satisfied that I'm doing what I believe God wants me to do, and that's
>enough for her. The other night was only one of maybe two or three other
>times I've shared with her what someone else has actually said to me in a
>newsgroup, and the others were both early on. So she hasn't seen any of
>your posts, but I'm sure if she did, you'd probably be in big trouble!
>
>
Now that's a bit of a worry. :(
And here's me thinking I would be, if not welcome in the Stamford abode,
at least tolerated. Any you just got thru telling me how you appreciated
me defending you. Oh well... such is life.
>If you want me to explain that for you some other time, I'll be glad to, but
>I can see by the old scroll box in the corner it's time to quit. ;-)
>
>
>God bless
>
>Chuck Stamford
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'If I save time, when do I get it back?'
|
|
| | From: | Mark T | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:29:36 +1100 |
|
|
| "pedro" wrote:
> But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to doubt
> the truth of such stories??
You'll never be brainwashed into becoming a fundamentalist if you dare to
ask questions.
Fundamentalists don't like people who ask questions.
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:41:01 GMT |
|
|
| Mark T wrote:
>"pedro" wrote:
>
>
>
>>But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to doubt
>>the truth of such stories??
>>
>>
>
>You'll never be brainwashed into becoming a fundamentalist if you dare to
>ask questions.
>
>Fundamentalists don't like people who ask questions.
>
>
He's never dodged a question I've put to him yet. Which is something
that can't be said for you.
|
|
| | From: | Athanasius | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:16:48 +1000 |
|
|
| On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:16:15 GMT, pedro wrote:
>
>But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to
>doubt the truth of such stories??
They do amongst our communion. :) Though not to one as sinful and
unbelieving as me.
Peace and grace.
Athanasius,servant.
The Chapel of the Four Living Creatures Coptic Orthodox Australian Mission.
Ningi, Bribie Island, Caboolture,South East Queensland,Australia, 4511.Telephone: 0407 969827
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
dcn_athanasius@REMOVEyahoo.com.au (REMOVE is spam trap-please remove it from the email address).
"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world." St Athanasius.
|
|
| | From: | Qolon | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:18:54 GMT |
|
|
| Dear Athanasius,
It is my hope that in the absence of an unreserved for your past unprovoked
slander made at 16 Jan 2005 09:22:47 in discussion thread Roger Pearse's
feigned piety, that you would at least refrain from further discourse
concerning religious matters on the Internet until the claim of religious
vilification pursuant to Section 8 of Victoria's (Australia) Racial and
Religious Tolerance Act 2001 Act No. 47/2001 is determined against you abd
the Egyptian Coptic Church.
I encourage you to make your apology as retraction of your remarks as false
characterisations within the relevant discussion thread before Australia Day
26 January, 2005 following which a complaint of Relgious Vilification
pursuant to the aforementioned act will be undertaken against you and the
religious community you represent.
- dolf
- http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kitchen.html
"Athanasius" wrote in message
news:ubgsu0dptuoih9kbptm3975n8ftfqpr1eu@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:16:15 GMT, pedro wrote:
>
>But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to
>doubt the truth of such stories??
They do amongst our communion. :) Though not to one as sinful and
unbelieving as me.
Peace and grace.
Athanasius,servant.
The Chapel of the Four Living Creatures Coptic Orthodox Australian Mission.
Ningi, Bribie Island, Caboolture,South East Queensland,Australia,
4511.Telephone: 0407 969827
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
dcn_athanasius@REMOVEyahoo.com.au (REMOVE is spam trap-please remove it from
the email address).
"If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world."
St Athanasius.
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:14:55 -0800 |
|
|
|
"pedro" wrote in message
news:PrqHd.124547$K7.18673@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
>
>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>news:OLnHd.124301$K7.11408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"pedro" wrote in message
>>>>news:IuFGd.121177$K7.20535@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>Gideon is a character in the Book of Judges (beginning in chapter six) in
>>the Old Testament. He lived during the time between the Israelites
>>conquering Canaan (however, without completely destroying *all* the pagan
>>tribes that lived there) under Joshua (the successor of Moses), and the
>>time when the Israelites adopted a monarchy as their form of government
>>(the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles).
>>
>>During this period in their history, a time span of several hundred years,
>>the Israelites were from time to time overcome by their pagan neighbors,
>>who would then put them under some form of subjugation: tribute, periodic
>>raiding of crops, sporadic slavery here and there, the kind of thing
>>ancient Near Eastern dominant pagan cultures normally did to subservient
>>ones. And during Gideon's life was one of these times in the histroy of
>>Israel.
>>
>>In any case, when Gideon was a young man, God spoke to him and told him
>>that he (God) had chosen Gideon to lead an army of Israelites to liberate
>>the nation from under the hand of the Midianites, the contemporary
>>oppressors of God's people. Gideon was at a loss as to why God had chosen
>>him; so much so that he was doubtful that it was God he was speaking to,
>>and who was speaking to him. He was pretty sure, but not positive. So he
>>asked for a sign, and the sign was that he (Gideon) would lay a sheep skin
>>on the ground outside overnight, and if in the morning the sheep skin was
>>wet with dew, and the grass around it was dry, then Gideon would know it
>>was God who was sending him into battle, and that he could then fight with
>>confidence in victory. There's a little more detail here, but this is the
>>basic, and relevant context of my using the word. However, I'm NOT making
>>any analogy between my wife's opinions and a damp sheep skin! I guess the
>>proper amount of imagination is needed here.
>>
>
> But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to doubt
> the truth of such stories??
You mean things like this, right? Miraculous things? Well, Pete, as far as
I know, they do still happen. I was once sick with the flu; running a
fever, throwing up every hour on the hour, terrible aches, the whole deal,
and when I prayed that God heal me if there wasn't some good reason I was
supposed to be sick, I was instantly well. No fever, no nausea, no
aches...like turning on a light. And then there was the vision I received
from God that caused me to turn from my agnosticism. I had once, in the
midst of my disbelief in God, asked that if he was real, he would make that
known to me in a way I couldn't deny. No using preachers preaching the
Gospel right after mentioning how their listeners could get their money to
them. No annoying Bible thumpers standing on the sidewalk. No
intermediaries at all. Just him. I thought at the time I was pretty safe!
But that was before he rocked my little world. And there have been other
little things God has done since, but nothing that one who wasn't me would
call impressive. They're mostly the "you had to be there" kind of miracles.
And these are just the miracles that have happened to me. I know of a good
many others from people I trust to be honest. There was one instance of a
man who prayed that the finger of a small child that his doctor had
amputated (it had been hopelessly crushed in a household accident) would be
healed. The man was pretty upset at first when the mother (who was near
renouncing her faith in God!) came and told him that after he had assured
her the child's finger would be healed good as new (because God had told him
when he prayed) that the doctor had cut it off. But then it grew back! It
took a few weeks, and it didn't have a nail. The doctor was pretty
dumbfounded. He told the mother that the nail would never grow back, I
suppose he was trying to salvage a little science in the situation. Within
a month, the nail grew back as well, and the finger was healed good as new.
There are miracles reported all over that world, Pete. It's just that no
one believes them, so they don't get the kind of press one would expect them
to get. I mean, how would it look to run a story of a woman raised from the
dead as some missionary prayed over her in the name of Jesus Christ on the
same page as the latest medical breakthrough? And if they did, which one
would you believe more?
>
>
>>>But it's certainly been a madhouse here in the last few days! There's
>>>been an issue between Abby and Vera, that probably won't interest you, so
>>>I won't go into it.
>>>
>>
>>I've read a few posts from each, and concerned would be a better word.
>>But you're right, a few was all I could handle. My heart breaks for them
>>both.
>>
>
> I have offered Abby an apology. I was a bit cruel to her today, and said
> some things that hurt her too much. Unfortunately this medium makes it too
> easy to say things to ppl we would never say if they were standing in
> front of us.
Yeah, I know what you mean. We all like our noses where they are.
>
>
>>>p's.. But what does your wife say about my posts?? :)
>>>
>>
>>Pete, I don't make a habit of sharing my posting experience's with my
>>wife. She doesn't really understand my spending the time doing it, but
>>she's satisfied that I'm doing what I believe God wants me to do, and
>>that's enough for her. The other night was only one of maybe two or three
>>other times I've shared with her what someone else has actually said to me
>>in a newsgroup, and the others were both early on. So she hasn't seen any
>>of your posts, but I'm sure if she did, you'd probably be in big trouble!
>>
>
> Now that's a bit of a worry. :(
>
> And here's me thinking I would be, if not welcome in the Stamford abode,
> at least tolerated. Any you just got thru telling me how you appreciated
> me defending you. Oh well... such is life.
That's not what I meant at all, Pete, and any time you're in my neighborhood
there will be a plate for you at my table, and a couch to sprawl on while
you digest the meal. What I meant was that she wouldn't just let the fact
that you're an agnostic slide (she's like that!), and God really listens to
this woman. And she doesn't much care what it takes to bring someone into
the kingdom of God. She's liable to pray that God do WHATEVER it takes to
get you off that fence on the right side, and depending on how stubborn you
are, that might mean the next year for you could be pretty uncomfortable.
That's what I meant by "big trouble". Pax?
Let me know if you're up for having my wife pray for you. And if you say
yes, don't ever let me hear you say later on I didn't warn you. ;-)
God bless
Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | Sean McHugh | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:28:57 GMT |
|
|
|
Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
> "pedro" wrote in message
> news:PrqHd.124547$K7.18673@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to doubt
> > the truth of such stories??
>
> You mean things like this, right? Miraculous things? Well, Pete, as far as
> I know, they do still happen. I was once sick with the flu; running a
> fever, throwing up every hour on the hour, terrible aches, the whole deal,
> and when I prayed that God heal me if there wasn't some good reason I was
> supposed to be sick, I was instantly well. No fever, no nausea, no
> aches...like turning on a light. And then there was the vision I received
> from God that caused me to turn from my agnosticism. I had once, in the
> midst of my disbelief in God, asked that if he was real, he would make that
> known to me in a way I couldn't deny. No using preachers preaching the
> Gospel right after mentioning how their listeners could get their money to
> them. No annoying Bible thumpers standing on the sidewalk. No
> intermediaries at all. Just him. I thought at the time I was pretty safe!
> But that was before he rocked my little world. And there have been other
> little things God has done since, but nothing that one who wasn't me would
> call impressive. They're mostly the "you had to be there" kind of miracles.
Two miracles so far. Chuck had an unspecified sign and got over
the flu.
> And these are just the miracles that have happened to me. I know of a good
> many others from people I trust to be honest. There was one instance of a
> man who prayed that the finger of a small child that his doctor had
> amputated (it had been hopelessly crushed in a household accident) would be
> healed.
These sort of accounts nearly always star out like this. The
apologist knows a person or persons who is/are honest. One is
led to believe that the original source was this honest person,
or at least very close to this 'honest' person. Even this probably
won't be so.
Even if Chuck did personally know the original source, the mere word
of this person - honest or not - is insufficient to establish a
miracle. To establish a miracle, a falsehood (or mistake) by this
'honest' person (or chain of persons) would need to be more miraculous
than the miracle it seeks to establish.
> The man was pretty upset at first when the mother (who was near
> renouncing her faith in God!) came and told him that after he had assured
> her the child's finger would be healed good as new (because God had told him
> when he prayed) that the doctor had cut it off. But then it grew back! It
> took a few weeks, and it didn't have a nail. The doctor was pretty
> dumbfounded. He told the mother that the nail would never grow back, I
> suppose he was trying to salvage a little science in the situation. Within
> a month, the nail grew back as well, and the finger was healed good as new.
Yeah right. I hope, Pedro, that when you read Chuck's post, you will
still have enough commonsense left to ask for the evidence of this
alleged happening. It's my bet that you won't even get a source.
> There are miracles reported all over that world, Pete.
Yes, miracles that are "reported" (by apologists) all over the world
tend to be either invisible/unspectacular (like flu recovery) or
spectacular ones for which there is no proper evidence - usually
not even a source. Notice, that in the story above, there are no
names given, like where it happened, the identity of the child,
the name of the hospital or the name of the surgeon. Not even the
gender of the child is provided. If miracles like this are really
happening all over the world, why do we only hear about them from
the Chucks of this word? Contrary to Chuck's lame excuse, a natural
or supernatural (or even medical) regeneration of a finger would be
a major international news item.
> It's just that no
> one believes them, so they don't get the kind of press one would expect them
> to get.
Here, Pedro, is where you are being asked to buy the story with no
evidence. You just have to take Chuck's word for it, and the word
of every fundamentalist in the story's retelling. Now, Pedro, ask
yourself, which is more likely, that a child grew another finger
or that one or two fundamentalists, along the way - shall we say -
exaggerated?
> I mean, how would it look to run a story of a woman raised from the
> dead as some missionary prayed over her in the name of Jesus Christ on the
> same page as the latest medical breakthrough? And if they did, which one
> would you believe more?
The more likely one, but that is beside the point. If there were
sufficient people (including medical staff) who could verify that
the child had lost a finger and that later he/she again had a
fully functional finger, that alone would have the reporters
clamouring. But in Chuck's little fable there was a period of weeks
over which it grew again. That would have given the opportunity for
the doctors, reporters, and viewers at home to follow the progress
of the miracle. It would hard to imagine a miracle that would
lend itself to better sceptical scrutiny with an outcome that
would be confounding to the unbelievers. So why didn't we hear
about it before Chuck revealed it? Simple, it never happened. It's
another fib for God.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
|
|
| | From: | Rowland Croucher | | Subject: | Miracles was Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:02:15 +1100 |
|
|
|
"Sean McHugh" wrote in message
news:41EF6050.67CC5BD0@shoal.net.au...
>
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>> "pedro" wrote in message
>> news:PrqHd.124547$K7.18673@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>> > But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to
>> > doubt
>> > the truth of such stories??
I googled 'reward' and 'miracles' and 'skeptics' and noted the following.
But somewhere there's quite a large reward offered by a skeptics' society
(in Britain?) for scientific proof just one miracle. Anyone know anything
about that?
Original headline: Priest offers $5000 to disprove miracles of Lourdes
A Sydney Catholic priest has challenged sceptics of religious miracles,
posting a $5000 bounty for anyone who can prove the Lourdes miracles he has
investigated are fakes.
Medical science might explain some cures attributed to the shrine in
southern France but not every instance of miraculous healing, says Paul
Glynn, a Marist Brother.
Father Glynn and his cousin Bill Dougherty, a former regional newspaper
proprietor, have offered the $5000 reward from their own pockets.
Millions of pilgrims have flocked to Lourdes since 1858, when a French
peasant girl, Bernadette Soubirous, said she had been visited by an
apparition of the Virgin Mary.
The Catholic Church has since recognised 66 miracles at the site, the most
recent in 1987. A medical tribunal set up to investigate claims of miracles
describes about 6800 cases as medically inexplicable, Father Glynn said. He
said the cases had not met the condition of a declared miracle.
Father Glynn, based in Hunters Hill, has interviewed four people and
reviewed the case notes of a further 20. He is convinced of their
authenticity.
"It can take 12 to 20 years before miracles are even accepted," he said.
"There must be a proven physical disease where pre-existing medical
conditions have been documented, the cure must be instantaneous ... and it
must be complete and permanent.
"They must be prepared to be examined by a medical tribunal and return to
Lourdes to be re-examined for several years after."
Father Glynn announced the reward to parishioners of St Kevin's Church, Dee
Why, yesterday in an attempt to convince non-believers of the power of
faith.
To win, a recognised professor of medicine must review the case medical
notes and be prepared to verify and identify an explicable reason for cure
and long-term recovery.
Australian Skeptics acknowledged the Lourdes medical tribunal was
painstaking in its investigations of alleged miracle cures. But the number
of cures accepted as miraculous by the Catholic Church compared to the
number of visits was hardly indicative of a statistical link between Lourdes
and cures, it said.
It also pointed out that Bernadette herself was not cured, and died of
tuberculosis.
Barry Williams, executive officer of the NSW chapter of Australian Skeptics,
is one who will not be taking up the challenge.
"It's like trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible. I suspect
many of those so-called cures are no longer alive and $5000 wouldn't come
near to covering the costs of an inquiry."
Some of the claims, he said, were "self-delusion", some the result of
physiological healing.
..:Story originally published by:.
Sydney Morning Herald / Australia | Linda Morris - Aug 30.04
The Skeptics' Bogus Bounty
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Penpoints
Monday, May 24, 1999
A response to a challenge from a dishonest infidel.
The skeptics have placed a "bounty" on my head. Well, in a manner of
speaking. They've offered me a bounty of $2,000 if I will accept their
challenge. But let me give you a bit of background.
Some years ago a former preacher and missionary associated with the churches
of Christ "soured," and, so far as anyone knows, abandoned any remnant of
faith - he identified with agnosticism.
For some reason - and the psychology of this would be interesting to probe -
the man developed an almost lunatic-like anger towards Christianity. Perhaps
his self-described "futile effort" in the mission field was more than he
could bear and so, responsibility had to be deposited somewhere!
Apparently, he chose the Bible instead of focusing upon his personal
inadequacies. He started a small paper through which to vent his rage, and,
over the years, his obsession with opposing Jesus Christ has intensified.
Unlike skeptics with greater integrity, he even disputes that the Lord ever
existed!
In order to satiate his lust for attention, he frequently challenges for
debates, resorting to the most unscrupulous tactics in his efforts to lure
opponents.
For example, some years ago this apostate sent invitations to a number of
ministers, offering to debate with them. The thing about that situation,
though, was this: he invented phony names of various denominational
affiliations by which to introduce himself.
Cranking out these little epistles on computer-generated letterheads, he
falsely presented himself as different clergymen, proposing debates on a
number of issues. If anyone responded positively, he flung off the mask of
pseudonymity, gleefully revealed his true identity, and challenged for a
discussion on his own terms. If the victim of his hoax was disgusted at the
ploy and refused further dialog, he was charged with being anxious to debate
a sectarian, but too cowardly to encounter an infidel. Somehow this
refreshed the gentleman's twisted psyche.
Eventually a few did engage him in debate; most, however, later regretted
it. Not because he was a formidable foe, but because he repeatedly proved
himself to be void of any semblance of honor.
I said all of that to say this. This modern "Judas" has posted the
"Two-Thousand-Dollar Opportunity" on his web site, offering (in collusion
with another skeptic) a reward to this writer (or others) if any "can take
all accounts of the resurrection [of Christ] in the four gospels [sic],
Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15, and write a single narrative in which he
includes every event and detail mentioned in the separate accounts and do so
without omitting anything or injecting inconsistency, contradiction, or
purely speculative materials into the narrative."
What a facade! Reflect upon a couple of matters.
First, where is the $2,000? Has it been deposited in a bank somewhere, just
in case someone responds? Why not make it $2 million? If the skeptics are so
confident of their case, surely they could "up the ante." After all, it
doesn't cost any more not to pay $2 million than $2,000! The fact is, these
people have no intention of paying anything - ever! Who wants to waste time
complying with this spurious offer?
Second, who would be the judge as to whether the criteria have been met or
not? Does anyone, who has a nodding acquaintance with reality, believe for
one minute that this dishonest crew is going to concede that the requirement
of their offer has been satisfied?
Third, skeptics have consistently demonstrated they haven't a clue as to
what constitutes a genuine discrepancy. They perceive of every difference in
detail, supplementation, etc., as a contradiction. It scarcely needs to be
noted that such is not the case. Several records of the same event may
differ in a variety of descriptives without there being "contradiction." But
these critics know little of the methods of literary analysis.
This "reward" fiasco, therefore, warrants only a fleeting notice. It is but
a ploy for attention. We give them a little, but not much! In fact, so far
as the subject of this review is concerned, the greatest indignity of all
will be the fact that his name was not mentioned.
--
*
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
* *
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
(14100+ articles, 3000 clean jokes/stories, 1.5 m. hits/month)
*
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:01:31 -0800 |
|
|
|
"Sean McHugh" wrote in message
news:41EF6050.67CC5BD0@shoal.net.au...
>
>
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>> "pedro" wrote in message
>> news:PrqHd.124547$K7.18673@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>> > But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted to
>> > doubt
>> > the truth of such stories??
>>
>> You mean things like this, right? Miraculous things? Well, Pete, as far
>> as
>> I know, they do still happen. I was once sick with the flu; running a
>> fever, throwing up every hour on the hour, terrible aches, the whole
>> deal,
>> and when I prayed that God heal me if there wasn't some good reason I was
>> supposed to be sick, I was instantly well. No fever, no nausea, no
>> aches...like turning on a light. And then there was the vision I
>> received
>> from God that caused me to turn from my agnosticism. I had once, in the
>> midst of my disbelief in God, asked that if he was real, he would make
>> that
>> known to me in a way I couldn't deny. No using preachers preaching the
>> Gospel right after mentioning how their listeners could get their money
>> to
>> them. No annoying Bible thumpers standing on the sidewalk. No
>> intermediaries at all. Just him. I thought at the time I was pretty
>> safe!
>> But that was before he rocked my little world. And there have been other
>> little things God has done since, but nothing that one who wasn't me
>> would
>> call impressive. They're mostly the "you had to be there" kind of
>> miracles.
>
> Two miracles so far. Chuck had an unspecified sign and got over
> the flu.
Have you ever "gotten over" some disease instantly? I mean, one minute
you're sick as a dog, and ten seconds later you're fit as a fiddle? That
ever happen to you? Ever happen to anyone you know? Do you know of any
medical explanation for such an instant cure from a viral infection?
>
>> And these are just the miracles that have happened to me. I know of a
>> good
>> many others from people I trust to be honest. There was one instance of
>> a
>> man who prayed that the finger of a small child that his doctor had
>> amputated (it had been hopelessly crushed in a household accident) would
>> be
>> healed.
>
> These sort of accounts nearly always star out like this. The
> apologist knows a person or persons who is/are honest. One is
> led to believe that the original source was this honest person,
> or at least very close to this 'honest' person. Even this probably
> won't be so.
>
> Even if Chuck did personally know the original source, the mere word
> of this person - honest or not - is insufficient to establish a
> miracle. To establish a miracle, a falsehood (or mistake) by this
> 'honest' person (or chain of persons) would need to be more miraculous
> than the miracle it seeks to establish.
You mind running that argument by me one more time? I've read that last
sentence several times now, and I still can't make out the logic involved.
>
>> The man was pretty upset at first when the mother (who was near
>> renouncing her faith in God!) came and told him that after he had assured
>> her the child's finger would be healed good as new (because God had told
>> him
>> when he prayed) that the doctor had cut it off. But then it grew back!
>> It
>> took a few weeks, and it didn't have a nail. The doctor was pretty
>> dumbfounded. He told the mother that the nail would never grow back, I
>> suppose he was trying to salvage a little science in the situation.
>> Within
>> a month, the nail grew back as well, and the finger was healed good as
>> new.
>
> Yeah right. I hope, Pedro, that when you read Chuck's post, you will
> still have enough commonsense left to ask for the evidence of this
> alleged happening. It's my bet that you won't even get a source.
Chuck Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel. Current pastor of Calvary Chapel,
Costa Mesa, Ca., 92704, USA. Of course I can't guarantee a response, but
you may contact the church via e-mail at http://www.calvarychapel.com/
The man in the account I gave was Chuck Smith. The basic facts are as he
has related them himself, in my hearing. My version of it here is by
recollection of hearing it from him twenty years ago, and may vary slightly
from the actual experience in some of the details. However, I believe the
basic facts are as I've stated them: the child's finger was smashed, the
mother asked Chuck Smith to pray over it, Chuck Smith did, and then told the
mother the child's finger would be healed, the doctor amputated it, and the
finger grew back, complete with nail.
>
>> There are miracles reported all over that world, Pete.
>
> Yes, miracles that are "reported" (by apologists) all over the world
> tend to be either invisible/unspectacular (like flu recovery) or
> spectacular ones for which there is no proper evidence - usually
> not even a source. Notice, that in the story above, there are no
> names given, like where it happened, the identity of the child,
> the name of the hospital or the name of the surgeon. Not even the
> gender of the child is provided.
The gender of the child? That's getting a little hyper-critical don't you
think? Or can you cite some scientific research study that has demonstrated
that gender is a significant factor in assessing the probabilities that a
child's finger will grow back after it's amputated? I mean, really....
If miracles like this are really
> happening all over the world, why do we only hear about them from
> the Chucks of this word? Contrary to Chuck's lame excuse, a natural
> or supernatural (or even medical) regeneration of a finger would be
> a major international news item.
It's a circular objection, Sean. You hear about them from the people who
are there when they happen. Those people are usually Christians. You think
all Christians who report such miracles are mistaken or lying. Ergo,
miracles have never been substantiated in your mind.
However, there are more things in the world than can fit comfortably in your
mind, Sean.
>
>> It's just that no
>> one believes them, so they don't get the kind of press one would expect
>> them
>> to get.
>
> Here, Pedro, is where you are being asked to buy the story with no
> evidence. You just have to take Chuck's word for it, and the word
> of every fundamentalist in the story's retelling. Now, Pedro, ask
> yourself, which is more likely, that a child grew another finger
> or that one or two fundamentalists, along the way - shall we say -
> exaggerated?
What's more likely, that a child grew another finger to replace the one
lost, or that your name is Sean?
>
>> I mean, how would it look to run a story of a woman raised from the
>> dead as some missionary prayed over her in the name of Jesus Christ on
>> the
>> same page as the latest medical breakthrough? And if they did, which one
>> would you believe more?
>
> The more likely one, but that is beside the point. If there were
> sufficient people (including medical staff) who could verify that
> the child had lost a finger and that later he/she again had a
> fully functional finger, that alone would have the reporters
> clamouring.
You seem to put a lot of faith in the media? Is that a consistent faith?
Or do you only have it when it helps what you want to say?
But in Chuck's little fable there was a period of weeks
> over which it grew again. That would have given the opportunity for
> the doctors, reporters, and viewers at home to follow the progress
> of the miracle. It would hard to imagine a miracle that would
> lend itself to better sceptical scrutiny with an outcome that
> would be confounding to the unbelievers. So why didn't we hear
> about it before Chuck revealed it? Simple, it never happened. It's
> another fib for God.
A "fib" for the truth, Sean? Wouldn't that be a case of irrationality
bordering on insanity? Do I really strike you as borderline insane?
Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | Theo Bekkers | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:35:22 +0800 |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
> Have you ever "gotten over" some disease instantly? I mean, one
> minute you're sick as a dog, and ten seconds later you're fit as a
> fiddle? That ever happen to you? Ever happen to anyone you know? Do you
> know of any medical explanation for such an instant cure from
> a viral infection?
Yup. Terrible cold, headache. I took a couple of Antihystamin and some
Nurofen and I was feeling great in a couple of minutes.
Theo
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:59:32 GMT |
|
|
| Theo Bekkers wrote:
>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
>
>>Have you ever "gotten over" some disease instantly? I mean, one
>>minute you're sick as a dog, and ten seconds later you're fit as a
>>fiddle? That ever happen to you? Ever happen to anyone you know? Do you
>>know of any medical explanation for such an instant cure from
>>a viral infection?
>>
>>
>
>Yup. Terrible cold, headache. I took a couple of Antihystamin and some
>Nurofen and I was feeling great in a couple of minutes.
>
>Theo
>
>
>
He meant a medical explanation that didn't involve treatment. Duh! Your
point is dismissed.
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with the software'
|
|
| | From: | Sean McHugh | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:53:56 GMT |
|
|
|
Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
> > Have you ever "gotten over" some disease instantly? I mean, one
> > minute you're sick as a dog, and ten seconds later you're fit as a
> > fiddle? That ever happen to you? Ever happen to anyone you know? Do you
> > know of any medical explanation for such an instant cure from
> > a viral infection?
>
> Yup. Terrible cold, headache. I took a couple of Antihystamin and some
> Nurofen and I was feeling great in a couple of minutes.
Read Chuck's specs. To be a miracle, it needs to be twice as fast as
that. :-)
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
|
|
| | From: | Sean McHugh | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:25:41 GMT |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "Sean McHugh" wrote in message
> news:41EF6050.67CC5BD0@shoal.net.au...
>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>> "pedro" wrote in message
>>> news:PrqHd.124547$K7.18673@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
When I was just about finished this reply it dawned on me what Chuck's
miracle finger story might be all about. This didn't make my existing
answers incorrect so much as redundant. I needed to do a lot of
snipping and some rewriting.
>>
>>>> But Chuck.. why don't these things happen now? Aren't you tempted
>>>> to doubt the truth of such stories??
>>> You mean things like this, right? Miraculous things? Well, Pete,
>>> as far as I know, they do still happen. I was once sick with the
>>> flu; running a fever, throwing up every hour on the hour, terrible
>>> aches, the whole deal, and when I prayed that God heal me if there
>>> wasn't some good reason I was supposed to be sick, I was instantly
>>> well. No fever, no nausea, no aches...like turning on a light. And
>>> then there was the vision I received from God that caused me to
>>> turn from my agnosticism. I had once, in the midst of my disbelief
>>> in God, asked that if he was real, he would make that known to me
>>> in a way I couldn't deny. No using preachers preaching the Gospel
>>> right after mentioning how their listeners could get their money
>>> to them. No annoying Bible thumpers standing on the sidewalk. No
>>> intermediaries at all. Just him. I thought at the time I was
>>> pretty safe! But that was before he rocked my little world. And
>>> there have been other little things God has done since, but
>>> nothing that one who wasn't me would call impressive. They're
>>> mostly the "you had to be there" kind of miracles.
>> Two miracles so far. Chuck had an unspecified sign and got over the
>> flu.
> Have you ever "gotten over" some disease instantly? I mean, one
> minute you're sick as a dog, and ten seconds later you're fit as a
> fiddle? That ever happen to you? Ever happen to anyone you know?
Was your condition diagnosed? When you say, "gotten over", do you mean
that you felt better or do you mean that the virus had left your body?
Were you on any medication at the time? If not, how come? For how long
were you sick? When you say, "ten seconds" for complete recovery, are
you being literal? Were you timing it? When you say, "fit as a fiddle"
wouldn't it take more than ten seconds even just to determine full
recovery?
> Do you know of any medical explanation for such an instant cure from
> a viral infection?
I don't believe I need one. It hasn't actually been established that
such a cure took place. I believe I am reading a faulty diagnosis,
exaggeration, some psychosomatics and lots of wishful thinking. As a
suggestion, what is called "24-hour flu" is usually food poisoning. It
can make someone "sick as a dog", but after the sluice gates have been
opened sufficiently, one can recover quite quickly. One often feels
better straight after the final purging - though fluids need to be
replaced. The sudden feeling of being well is probably relative,
having a lot to do with how rotten one felt previously.
>>> And these are just the miracles that have happened to me. I know
>>> of a good many others from people I trust to be honest. There was
>>> one instance of a man who prayed that the finger of a small child
>>> that his doctor had amputated (it had been hopelessly crushed in a
>>> household accident) would be healed.
>> These sort of accounts nearly always start out like this. The
>> apologist knows a person or persons who is/are honest. One is led
>> to believe that the original source was this honest person, or at
>> least very close to this 'honest' person. Even this probably won't
>> be so.
>> Even if Chuck did personally know the original source, the mere
>> word of this person - honest or not - is insufficient to establish
>> a miracle. To establish a miracle, a falsehood (or mistake) by this
>> 'honest' person (or chain of persons) would need to be more
>> miraculous than the miracle it seeks to establish.
> You mind running that argument by me one more time? I've read that
> last sentence several times now, and I still can't make out the
> logic involved.
Sure. I am saying that no testimony is sufficient to establish a
miracle, unless the testimony is of such a nature that its falsehood
would be more miraculous than the miracle to which it testifies.
Actually, the situation for such testimony is worse than that, but for
now I'll leave it at that.
I'll put it another way. If someone were to ask, "What is the
likelihood that that Joe Blow's report on the miracle is the truth?" I
could in complete confidence reply, "It would be a miracle if he were
telling the truth!" Think about it.
>>> The man was pretty upset at first when the mother (who was near
>>> renouncing her faith in God!) came and told him that after he had
>>> assured her the child's finger would be healed good as new
>>> (because God had told him when he prayed) that the doctor had cut
>>> it off. But then it grew back! It took a few weeks, and it didn't
>>> have a nail. The doctor was pretty dumbfounded. He told the mother
>>> that the nail would never grow back, I suppose he was trying to
>>> salvage a little science in the situation. Within a month, the
>>> nail grew back as well, and the finger was healed good as new.
>> Yeah right. I hope, Pedro, that when you read Chuck's post, you
>> will still have enough commonsense left to ask for the evidence of
>> this alleged happening. It's my bet that you won't even get a
>> source.
> Chuck Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel. Current pastor of Calvary
> Chapel, Costa Mesa, Ca., 92704, USA. Of course I can't guarantee a
> response, but you may contact the church via e-mail at
> http://www.calvarychapel.com/
Just as you allude, I probably wouldn't get a reply - especially if
I'm seen to be auditing this miracle. However, you might have more
success; you are apparently one of the flock.
> The man in the account I gave was Chuck Smith. The basic facts are
> as he has related them himself, in my hearing. My version of it here
> is by recollection of hearing it from him twenty years ago, and may
> vary slightly from the actual experience in some of the details.
> However, I believe the basic facts are as I've stated them: the
> child's finger was smashed, the mother asked Chuck Smith to pray
> over it, Chuck Smith did, and then told the mother the child's
> finger would be healed, the doctor amputated it, and the finger grew
> back, complete with nail.
And you accepted that without questioning it?
The resolution for this story hasn't improved much with this post. If
this miracle really happened, as you reported it, it would be
outstanding and there should be medical evidence of it. As I allude at
the top, I now think that this 'miracle' may have an actual basis, but
that possible basis is much closer to the realm of the ordinary than
to the supernatural.
>>> There are miracles reported all over that world, Pete.
>> Yes, miracles that are "reported" (by apologists) all over the
>> world tend to be either invisible/unspectacular (like flu recovery)
>> or spectacular ones for which there is no proper evidence - usually
>> not even a source. Notice, that in the story above, there are no
>> names given, like where it happened, the identity of the child, the
>> name of the hospital or the name of the surgeon. Not even the
>> gender of the child is provided.
> The gender of the child? That's getting a little hyper-critical
> don't you think? Or can you cite some scientific research study that
> has demonstrated that gender is a significant factor in assessing
> the probabilities that a child's finger will grow back after it's
> amputated? I mean, really....
Twisting my points will do you no favours. It will be pretty obvious
to any readers - those who are sharper than a butcher's block - that I
was referring to the lack of detail in the story, rather than to any
gender related medical considerations. The best way for fabrications
or embellishments to go undetected is to be as vague as possible. A
similar thing is the way that UFO photos tend to be fuzzy. When a UFO
sceptic criticizes the reliably poor quality of the photographic
evidence, he is not making a statement on technical limits this would
impose on the alleged craft.
If the episode were as you reported it, we wouldn't need Chuck Smith
to relate it; we could read about it in medical journals and in
reports quoted from medical journals. It would also have been all over
the news. It would be folklore in and around the town where it
happened.
It seems that even Chuck Smith may have lost interest in his fantastic
story. I went to the Calvary page of wonderful miracles and only found
the standard claims. This Calvary Chapel page sends one to the
testimonial page:
http://poptop.hypermart.net/testcalchap.html
The testimonial page:
http://poptop.hypermart.net/testimonies.html
Just the usual ho-hum stuff. There is one miracle account following an
amputation, but that is where the amputee became a Christian
inspiration - a one arm inspiration:
http://poptop.hypermart.net/testdd.html
>> If miracles like this are really happening all over the world, why
>> do we only hear about them from the Chucks of this word? Contrary
>> to Chuck's lame excuse, a natural or supernatural (or even medical)
>> regeneration of a finger would be a major international news item.
> It's a circular objection, Sean. You hear about them from the people
> who are there when they happen. Those people are usually Christians.
> You think all Christians who report such miracles are mistaken or
> lying. Ergo, miracles have never been substantiated in your mind.
Nonsense! Say for instance the amputated finger miracle really
happened; it's exposure would not be limited to the Calvary Chapel. It
would be a remarkable documented case (and that's an understatement)
in medicine. It would be reported by the town folk. There would
attract teams of reporters and would be the main story on '60 Minutes'
and every other current affairs program. This would continue during
and beyond the weeks that the alleged miracle was unfolding. It would
also be reported enthusiastically by the family.
> However, there are more things in the world than can fit comfortably
> in your mind, Sean.
You mean like a plethora of gods, ESP, telekinesis, levitation,
numerology, astrology, astral travel, palmistry, pyramid power,
crystal power, auras, tarot cards, ghosts, fairies, lucky charms,
reincarnation, phrenology, Jupiter Effect, mental telepathy, karma and
ectoplasm?
>>> It's just that no one believes them, so they don't get the kind of
>>> press one would expect them to get.
>> Here, Pedro, is where you are being asked to buy the story with no
>> evidence. You just have to take Chuck's word for it, and the word
>> of every fundamentalist in the story's retelling. Now, Pedro, ask
>> yourself, which is more likely, that a child grew another finger or
>> that one or two fundamentalists, along the way - shall we say -
>> exaggerated?
> What's more likely, that a child grew another finger to replace the
> one lost, or that your name is Sean?
I'll assume that that is rhetorical. In any case, if that's supposed
to be an argument _for_ the factuality of the alleged miracle, then I
can't see the logic in it at all. Can anyone help?
>>> I mean, how would it look to run a story of a woman raised from
>>> the dead as some missionary prayed over her in the name of Jesus
>>> Christ on the same page as the latest medical breakthrough? And if
>>> they did, which one would you believe more?
>> The more likely one, but that is beside the point. If there were
>> sufficient people (including medical staff) who could verify that
>> the child had lost a finger and that later he/she again had a fully
>> functional finger, that alone would have the reporters clamouring.
> You seem to put a lot of faith in the media? Is that a consistent
> faith? Or do you only have it when it helps what you want to say?
Again you completely twist my meaning. Anyone can see I made no
comment about what evidence I would need, only what would interest
reporters. It was to refute your naive argument that reporters
wouldn't want to touch such a story. My point should have been pretty
obvious. Also, the media there was not to be the primary reliable
source; rather it would be the potential medical evidence.
I will add something else here. Aside from the twisting of my point, I
think it is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You
trusted the report of one man with a vested interest who seemingly
provided no details. Even if only the media bodies became involved,
there would be details that allowed examination. For a start there
would be photos. It would be difficult to fake the growing back of an
amputated finger over a period of a few weeks and to have several news
teams cooperating with the deception or to have all of them ignorant
of it. By comparison, it wouldn't be at all difficult for a minister
to present manufactured verbal evidence from the pulpit.
> But in Chuck's little fable there was a period of weeks
>> over which it grew again. That would have given the opportunity for
>> the doctors, reporters, and viewers at home to follow the progress
>> of the miracle. It would hard to imagine a miracle that would lend
>> itself to better sceptical scrutiny with an outcome that would be
>> confounding to the unbelievers. So why didn't we hear about it
>> before Chuck revealed it? Simple, it never happened. It's another
>> fib for God.
> A "fib" for the truth, Sean? Wouldn't that be a case of
> irrationality bordering on insanity?
It happens all the time. For instance, I related to Pedro an account
from a fundamentalist at my work: Just as in your story, it later
turned out to be his minister who was the 'honest' person who gave him
testimony of an amazing miracle. As far as he was concerned, the
minister was personally involved. When I showed him a different
version of the miracle that I got from the Internet, he became
genuinely concerned and vowed to track it down. He tried to contact
this former minister but could only make contact with a secretary, and
I think that it wasn't even the minister's secretary, but that of a
colleague. Though the 'compelling' story, that my friend related, was
set in Australia, it turned out that the story came from some revival
meeting in Pensacola, USA.
So, Chuck, why should I trust your honest person (minister) when I
didn't trust the honest person (minister) of my friend? When it comes
to claims of the supernatural, scepticism is much better than trust.
Otherwise we would be open to all sorts of bizarre claims. Reality
would be out the window.
> Do I really strike you as borderline insane?
I see you as easily succumbing to wishful thinking.
Afterthought:
I may have already got to the bottom of this. If Chuck responds
favourably to the following, then some of what I have written above
will be redundant to one degree or another. Exercising slight optimism
I have already snipped chunks of what I wrote.
Anyway, I think I have figured out what may have been the basis for
the story. I saw the following topic in the headers while I was
researching the matter. However, it wasn't talking about the problems
of an actual finger growing back, so I moved onto the next and forgot
about it. Later it twigged and I went back to investigate. It may have
been a finger tip that was crushed and that regrew after removal. That
is something that will happen (mainly with children). Apart from the
nail, a finger tip's regrowth only requires an extension of what is
already there. It doesn't require the complete regeneration of missing
joints. Regeneration of whole joints is something that doesn't happen.
http://coloherp.org/cb-news/Vol-29/cbn-0207/Regeneration.php
~ The Newsletter of the Colorado Herpetological Society Volume 29,
~ Number 7; July, 2002
~ Even in the 1970's there was evidence that young children under the
~ age of 11 could entirely regrow a lost finger tip!
This could explain the doctor's concern over the nail. That seemed
trivial considering what had allegedly happened. After all, if a whole
finger could regrow, including joints, what is so special about a
fingernail regrowing? But if it were really just the fingertip, then
it makes sense; the fingernail is the only thing that would be missing
entirely. The doctor would naturally be interested in the fingernail
then. Here is more to suggest that this was the nature of the injury:
http://www.institutocelular.com/trappedFin.htm
~ Trapped Fingers and Amputated Finger Tips in Children
~ By Cynthia M. Illingworth
~ We now know that spontaneous regeneration and excellent cosmetic and
~ functional results can be obtained in guillotine amputations of
~ finger tips in young children.
Note that the patient in Chuck Smith's story was a child. The fact that
it wasn't realised till the seventies, that finger tips on children
could regrow, could explain the doctor's surprise. Recall, according
to your testimony, you heard about it twenty years ago, so it had to
have happened before that. Now wasn't it in the late sixties that
Chuck Smith's ministry started?
The following shows that the amount of finger tip that can regrow can
be quite large:
~ We have been grading the levels of tissue loss (Fig. 5) and know
~ that, in a young child, amputation of a finger-tip to grade 5 will
~ have an excellent functional and cosmetic result. B.S.
Now look at Fig. 5 and you will see that a grade 5 amputation is most
of way the back to the first joint.
Fig. 5:
One can certainly understand a minister, who prayed for the child's
finger, would get excited by this, but it hasn't got anything to do
with miracles.
If either you or Chuck Smith would claim that it was more than a
finger tip, as suggested by your report that it was a _finger_ that
regrew, then very strong evidence needs to be presented. If you are
willing for it just to be a finger tip, then you need to report it as
such and you need to point out that children having regrowth of a
amputated finger tips is not medically uncommon. If you are unsure,
then once again you can't claim it as a miracle for to do so is to
presume that the supernatural is more likely than the natural and the
relatively common.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
|
| |
|
|