Let's talk here....

`

 

--------

 

hank - do you have vertigo or dizziness or nystagmus or osciopolla?ADD? Migraines?

If you experience any of those symptoms or all...and Lord forbid that you do, than you would understand just how difficult it is to read. once being an avid reader I use to enjoy the reading of word - now for the past four years - to read more than a paragraph at a time is almost impossible - plus the digesting of the words and sentences is very hard and often confusing.

so imagine others who are in the same boat as I am - how difficult is it to read lengthy posts - how difficult it is to understand - how truly hard it is to follow line upon line and then try to reflect upon the words and our stomach is nauseated and our eyes are bouncing and room may start to spin --the visual stimuli for some with vestibular disorders is very sensitive and can trigger nausea, dizziness, etc

i'm not telling you to shorten your posts but if you did it would help people such as myself and dare I say Paul. If only your words or Mr. Bentley's words can only be understood and comprehended (sp) in full version - than maybe with your brillance and God's will you can paraphrase for those such as myself. I have no doubt there is good information in the posts but for people such as myself - we will never be able to read them. So maybe the posts aren't meant for me or others such as myself - than who are they meant for - because most people on the forum suffer from a form of vestibular disorder. I haven't spoken to GF about this but I speek freely when I say it's not personal just pratical.

i hope you understand - even for me to re-read what I just wrote is very difficult - i have temporal lobe damage which adds further to the disability - I thank God for your ability to read and comprehend and write such informative posts.

 

but in all fairness - and please remember I can not read all lines of this thread - but in reference to Mr. Bentley's words and such - isn't it more important to believe in Jesus - our healing comes from Jesus not Mr. Bentley or those around him - they are merely vessels. You say Mr. Bentley has powerful information and words but aren't they truly God's words and information - because Mr. Bentley is merely the messenger - not the message - right? I understand that Mr. Bentley is healing people but doesn't his healing come from God and shouldn't God be getting the glory and not Mr. Bentley? So if I can not read all of Mr. Bentley's words, which are inspired by God, than my healing will be hindered? To be honest I'd rather read the Bible and go right to the source.

This is a very sensitive area for me; because I'm in the process of a divorce from a man who believed I did not have enough faith or pray enough so my healing never came. He was a man of God - supposedly - but blamed me for not being healed - when I tried to inform him I had healed so much on the inside it was null because he could not see it - it was not tangible. My ex even believed I was a curse and was being punished by God and that our marriage was not annointed because I was never healed. He took me places, bought me tapes, dvds, prayed over me - laid hands on me - and when I got worse he blamed me - saying I did not pray or believe enough. To be honest; I have a lot of faith - it may be simple - and not eloquent faith or words such as Mr. Bentley's but my belief in Jesus and his ability to heal me is and never has faltered - my healing will come in Jesus time - not my own.

 

note: my words may be harsh but i am speaking / writing from the gut and heart - not head - and it reminds me of times/moments in my life where I was forced to sit and listen to my ex preach to me about healing and sickness and my lack of faith - mind you it would go on for about three to four hours and sometimes all night - and if i moved or excused myself he would start all over - telling me that my lack of attention to his words and detail is what hinders my healing - sometimes he'd start preaching/lecturing me when I had just had an attack and would be relentless for hours not allowing me to rest or recover - than would go downstairs and play worship music and sing for hours at a time - i lived iin a colonial and had state of the art music equipment and amplifiers - etc - so the sound would reverberate thruout my room and head - and having SCD would trigger vertigo - or make me go down stairs and sit thru his concerts and or play his tapes or others full blast all day and night - all with the concept that if I didn't pay attention and hear/listen to other's words and interpetation of healing than my healing wouldn't come - when I aruged that man was a vessel and not the healer - my words fell on deaf ears

 

I understand the difficulties you may have reading, and I apologize for seeming insensitive to that. And at the same time, very unfortunately, I do not know what to do about it from where I sit. All I really know to do is to get the information out there. Perhaps there is someone who could help you go through it? It is my understanding that a CD is available on the subject in Lakeland. When we are there, I will obtain it for you. That should help.

Regarding Mr. Bentley, absolutely, any healing that comes through him he attributes directly to Jesus, and he glorifies these healings in the name of Jesus. Mr. Bentley is the first to say that he is only the messager, the vehicle, but that God is the power and Jesus is the source of all healing he is involved with. You asked whether if you cannot read all of Mr. Bentley's words, which are inspired by God, then will your healing will be hindered. I cannot begin to answer that, nor should I, in any other way than to direct you to the information I posted. I have heard many preachers in my day; but I will tell you this, Mr. Bentley may look like quite the vagabond, but he knows his Bible. He knows it better than anyone whom I have ever heard. I am sure that the information of his that I posted was not constructed overnight. That information is the product of intense study of the Bible. It is rooted in the Bible and the Bible is Mr. Bentley's source of authority, the word of God, not the word of Todd.

Hank

 

I believe God may have done you a favor by inspiring him to go elsewhere. Now, forget all that. Put it behind you. Concentrate on you and your own healing. Concentrate on knowing the truth and if God is the route for your healing, concentrate on knowing the truth of God. If there is any other route, concentrate on that truth. Either way, the truth cannot be obtained vicariously. The truth is discerned via effort, personal pursuit. You may be handicapped in that regard; but you are not dead. There are means at your disposal. Use every means. No one can do it for you. You have to do it yourself. We are all dealt different hands. You must play yours as best it can be played. Diligence.

Your words are not harsh to me. Do not concern yourself with that. Rather, concern yourself with trying to accomplish things you did not know you were able to accomplish. For starters, try to get back into what I posted above. You are a woman of faith, practice that faith. I have faith that you can be helped. You must have the same faith and act on that faith.

 

Here's an interesting video from Fox News concerning the debate between miracles and science. It concerns a particular event of raising a man from the dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUJiD_UFNCE

 

I see human potential as channelling all we have towards a goal either over time or in a given moment. Take the lady with her child stuck under the car. She may have had a headache that day or a sore back, but when her full intention in that one moment was to help her child, she was able to pool all resources towards lifting that object. At no point would she have stopped to think "It's too heavy" or "I'm too old" or "There's nothing I can do". Adrenalin would have surged, energy directed to where it was needed and every muscle in her body utilized (beyond habitual movement). I think stories like these teach us so much. We tend to forget that she was not extra-ordinary, but rather just an ordinary, everyday person. Or to put it another way, we are all capable of extra-ordinary feats.

For people who have played sport, I see it a little like 'being in the zone'. You know, where time slows down and you seem to be able to do anything. You don't 'think' yourself into this zone, you have to trust it will happen. This used to happen to me years ago while playing squash. I remember at some points being beaten badly then from somewhere my focus would heighten and I would start to play instinctively. It was like accepting that I had everything I needed without the stress and over-thinking. And it was simply astonishing how it changed the game. I seemed to have all the time in the world, the ball would seem huge and I was completely aware of where my opponent was. At no point would I stop and say "I need to do this for my team" (pressure/guilt) or "I can't fail" and tighten up with that thought. I would be doing it easy.

I suspect when someone is 'healed', they are somehow reminded of that power within. But I don't believe we need someone else to achieve this (although I do believe there is power in shared intention). I found it in my own home, on my own. Single minded and trusting that I, like everyone, have been given all I need to resolve my suffering. I am in awe of this 'ordinary' ability as I am in nature itself. And I remain thankful of having access to the basics like food, water, shelter, emergency care etc that so many don't have.

The thing is, this is my belief but of course it may not be yours. Who knows, maybe down the track one of us may change our mind but for right now, what we believe is our personal reality and therefore right for us. Interesting to share but bound to cause conflict if we believe our way is the only way.

Anyway, that's how I see it Pardonme.

 

---------

 

The man in the video had been with no heartbeat for 30 minutes. No one can be without heartbeat for 30 minutes and be alive at the same time. So we have a paradox. No heartbeat for 30 minutes, no sign of life, then perfectly regular heartbeat and the man is walking and talking- that is as yousay, impossible. Raising the dead, impossible. Yet there it is in the video. Explain the paradox. Hey, this is a story that aired on Fox News. The dead guy is in the video telling his experience. His doctor tells the whole story too. This isn't something that the 700 Club came up with. And if, as you say, you can't raise the dead, then watch it just out of interest. I'm sure you will agree with the one other doctor, that somehow the body kept blood running through the guys arteries even though he had no pulse and no blood pressure. If a lady can pick up a car, then I don't know why you wouldn't believe that a man can come back to life after 30 minutes. Judging the attributes of the human species, these events are equally unlikely. I'm surprised that you would have the interest to take part in this thread, yet not have the interest to watch that video of a real life situation that deals with the subject matter of this thread. That really surprises me. That indicates to me that you already have the answers before your analysis is complete.

 

-------

 

So the issue is the man's story, and the story of the victim? You do not believe the story they tell? Is that correct? Then can we just for the sake of discussion isolate that factor? Hypothetically, if you personally witnessed all that they described in their stories, if perhaps this fellow was your father, or husband, or brother, or son, no signs of life for 30 minutes, flat-lining, dead for all practical, medical and scientific purposes, and then woke up to lead a perfectly normal life afterward, would you then believe the man was brought back from the dead? I'm just curious.

 

------

 

Then what would you believe, magic?

You accepted my definition of agnostic, and you confirmed it when you said that even under the circumstances I described, when a miracle occurred right before your eyes, you would not believe in God. If you are truly agnostic, I am curious as to the conditions under which you would actually believe in God. If what these folks described are not those conditions, then what? And if there are no conditions under which you would believe in God, then am I not correct in my definition?

 

quoted by Henry Sullivan:
[Q]I am the authority therefore on my own remarks, so what I am about to say should not be subject to refuting.[/Q]

I am an agnostic. I do not know for certain that there is no god. I do not know for certain that there is a god. I can't prove it either way and to my knowledge no one else can right now either. I am open to the idea that there might be a god. Right now I haven't seen, read, felt anything that leads me to believe that there is one, but that day might come. I just don't know. I can't say for certain, therefore I am not an atheist which is someone who would say for certain.

Your quote should apply to agnostics. We are saying we are not sure. You are trying to refute our words. Why?

Why would you say that agnostics don't exist? As someone who is hell bent on insisting there is a god, wouldn't you appreciate the fact that agnostics are open to the idea and therefore you might be able to bring a few over to your side?

 

My point is unless you believe in God, then you do not believe in God. And if you do not believe in God, you are an atheist, "a" meaning "not," "theism" meaning "belief in God." Not believing in God is atheism. If you have not even the most primordial belief in God, you are an atheist. And if you have such a belief, you are not atheistic, not even agnostic. Agnosticism indicates a kind of soft atheism, maybe almost politically correct atheism, the idea that someone just doesn't know, has not made up there mind yet, needs more information. But for folks who have not decided, then regardless of the reason, for them the light is still off, non-belief, a-theism. The light only comes on, even if it is dimly lit, when the belief in God is present.

To take that a step further, unless there is a hypothetical under which one would actually change and begin to believe in God, then one would always be an atheist. Trish, for example, even under the condition that a miracle occurred to a close loved one, maybe even herself, a miracle that can be explained no other way than to attribute it to God, contends that she still would not believe in God. So for Trish, its not even that she has not decided yet. She has definitely decided. She patently denies even the plausibility that one day under the most remote circumstances she could even be agnostic, soft atheistic. Trish describes the definition of atheism, but she calls hereself as agnostic.

So my question to you would be, what would it take, Old Timer? What would it take for you to begin to believe that there is God? Either one believes in God or one does not. The switch is either on or it is off. There is no middle ground on which to tread. If you have not decided; then indeed you do not believe in God. And if you do not believe in God, you are an atheist. That is the defintion of the word. No one can prove it to you either way. So to say that the jury is still out, that you just haven't decided, is just another way to say that you do not believe in God. The jury will very likely always remain out. Either God makes sense and you believe in God or He does not and you don't.

But just because one is an atheist now does not mean that one will be one forever. Who knows, when confronted with a miracle maybe even Trish would switch over and begin to believe in God. Perhaps she just doesn't know it now. We all change. We all learn. But until that time comes, she does not believe in God and is therefore an atheist.

Believing in God does not prevent doubt. Sure there can be doubt. That just means the light is on but the voltage is low; the light is dim. But for those who have just have no inclination on this issue, there is no voltage present to the light, not even the weakest belief. The light is just off.

And as a personal observation, the use if the lower case 'g' in 'god' indicates abject non-belief, no respect for the possibility of God, not even the most primordial, weakest belief. You might think that I overreach with that remark; but symbolically, that is what it means. Lower case 'g' is what is used when one refers to Greek mythology.

I do not insist that anyone believe that God exists. That is not my point. I do mean to explore the topic. I do not pretend to be able to bring you over to my side. You would have to be shown evidence that you consider convincing. I can't show you anything that is not available to you already.

I do not refute your words; I examine your words. Any refutation comes from your understanding of the examination.

 

Had lunch Monday with a good friend who is a pastor. She and I discussed nothing but theology for two hours, punctuated only by bites of divine burritos--our talk included everything from the trinity to infinity. One of the things she reminded me of is the Bible is a vital and living document--it is, from my point of view, dynamic. This does not say people go back and change the words (That was done a long time ago and is reflected in the different versions of the Bible, partcularly the Apocrypha.).

I refer to this not to engender discussion about the books of disputed authority in the Bible or to ponder why my Oxford annotated is different from other Bibles, but as a starting point in a discussion of "either/or" and "absolutes". I reject the idea that if one is an agnostic one is really an atheist, because we either believe in God or we don't. This may seem like an argument grounded in semantics, but I contend that Hanks narrow perspective (either/or) is semantic in nature. You can be bright and knowledgable and still very narrow in certain areas. I admit to this myself at times.

By dictionary definition, the agnostic wants material evidence of a concept like God--however, as most agnostics define themselves, this is too narrow. Ask agnostics--as I have a hundred times in 40 of my 56 years--they aren't demanding evidence but are saying they don't know. Socrates thought this was a sign of great wisdom--being wise enough to know you don't have all the answers.

As an agnostic, I do not, and never have claimed, God does not exist. Simply put, I believe in the infinite and I am comfortable calling this God. I call myself and agnostic for two reasons--one, there are many things that remain a mystery to me and two, I don't know how much of the doctrines of religions I accept. If I don't decide to buy the whole package of a given religion, then I will not label myself as such. That is as far as I will take the either/or or absolute mentality as it applies to giving myself a label. I don't know all the answers I want to know; therefore, I am not without belief, but taken as a whole, my belief system does not fall into a category of any religion nor can it even be described as deism.

I will not elaborate further on my beliefs except to say no one else has the right to decide what label to apply to them. Is is either arrogance or sublime naivete for someone to presume and (verbosely) state/argue that their definition of agnostics is more valid or logical than the agnostics definition of himself. It is always the privilege of another to disagree and try to prove I am wrong about myself. It is also my privilege to say they are completely full of shit if they really think they know me and that contending they know what others mean to say more than they do is insulting. Water it down, rationalize it with verbosity as much as you want, it is insulting from my point of view.

I have said more than I intended to say and will conclude my verbose argument with a few more opinions. If we discuss miracles, one can attribute them to something other than God and not be an atheist. The evidence--my spouse, my MIL and other devout Christians, as well as two pastors who lead a huge fundamantalist congregation in my city would not necessarily attribute miracles or healings to the spirit. Are they all atheists? The danger in the either/or mentality is apparent here. Using the argument that those who say they do not know do not believe is very limiting. More significantly, and this relates to my reference to the dymanic nature of the word and to the world--all things are in constant motion and all things change. I can witness something one moment and believe something about it and the next moment witness a nearly identical event and believe something else about it because I do not and cannot control what occurs between the two events or the events themselves.

Finally, as I have said before, learning rarely occurs in contentious discourse and the previous pages have been full of this. I have allowed myself to engage in it again--I believe there are others who share the sentiments I expressed but perhaps have been too polite to say them in the manner I have. My mother tried hard to teach me to be polite. My father taught me to tolerate things as much as possible but when you reach a point when you get fed up, take no prisoners. My mother was perhaps a better role model. Having been reminded of that, I am likely to stay away from this discussion a while.

 

Jim,

Of the ideas you eloquently expressed, I will choose this one to respond to, and that is the idea that God has anything to do with religion. That is a common impression. But God has only His word and His acts. Man makes religion out of His word and His acts. I am the member of no religion. Even so, I can believe the Bible is true. I believe the Bible is true to the extent that God means it to be true. If God's meaning in the Garden of Eden is that that story was an allegory, then I believe it was an allegory. If God meant it to be literally true, then I believe it is literally true. It's not up to me to know. But it is up to me to believe that it is true, to the extent that God means it to be true. That way, I am free to understand the Bible for what it means to me without having to accept religious doctrine or tradition.

The Bible says what it says. We can learn from those who are more learned of the Bible than we are. In that category there are many more informed than I. Some of those people are members of established religions. Yet some are not. How can anyone justify so many religions that came out of the same book? If we had to, how would we choose which one was correct? No, I would rather derive the truth myself, with the help of the guidance of others who have more knowledge than I, than to find myself surrounded by the pomp or various traditions of a certain organized religions.

Finally, others may infer an attitude in what I write; but I assure you, there is none implied. I might define. I might discuss or explore; I may make folks think; but I do not judge. If I refer to someone who is an atheist, well, that's just what they claim to be, or what they describe to me. I have made no value judgements about that term or them. Look back, I have not claimed any right or wrong to their beliefs, or mine. These beliefs are what they are. That's it. So please, if you or anyone has misunderstood, please respect that I have made no value judgments here of anyone's beliefs.

 

Jim,
Thank you for your words. They were spot on.

Hank,
when I refer to my cat I use a lower case c as in " I have a cat". When I refer to him by his name I use an uppercase G as his name is Garfield.
So unless I name my cat Cat I don't need the uppercase c.


You can spin it all you want but at the end of the day when I say I don't consider myself an atheist and you tell me I must be one, then I consider that refuting my words. Like Jim, I find it insulting. Examine my words till the cows come home, but you are still labelling me.... and incorrectly at that.