I certainly admire your faith in many ways, But I disagree on various points. Firstly while I firmly believe that God hears our prayers I certainly don't belief that cancer cells or other problems do. Secondly I don't really believe in miracles. The very fact of our and this wonderful world's existence is miraculous enough for me. And thirdly: should God ever decide to let cancer grow in my body He'll have His reasons. Should He decide that modern medicine combined with the self-healing mechanisms He's fitted my body with shall succeed in curing me, He'll have His reasons, too. And He'll have His reasons should I not be cured but die. I think He places problems in our way so that we deal with them, learn and evolve, not in miraculous ways, but in human ones. Because that's what He made us: human.
I get all excited when I read the title of these threads and get disappointed when I opened them... I thought you had some Healing Potions or something!!
He made us in the image of himself. We limit our humanity and potential when we consider this is all there is. Remember, we Christians are more than just body and mind, we have a spiritual component that tends to get overlooked. This is where God has an impact on our life, He sees us as perfect in this regard and no amount of worldly beliefs and obstacles get in the way of that. I do not believe my God places problems in our lives, I do believe He allows problems so that we see the need for a Savior, unlike the non-believer who walks in darkness hoping for answers from man who will fail them. God does in fact take those negative things in life we experience and will work them for good to those who love Him and those that are called for His purpose. It's all scriptural what I have shared, so please taken another look at your current beliefs and see if you too can shuck that religious stuff that will hold you back from a more personal relationship with Him. God bless.
I agree to an extend. Faith gives us the hope and confidence to tackle our problems rather than to sit depressed in some corner and cry. But tackling is what they need. In case of cancer – to stay with the example – it needs seeking/providing medical care. And of course Doctors are not God – a fact that some of them sometimes need to be reminded of. But in general I'd assume they'd do everything they possibly can to help people. They may fail us just like any human can, while God – when it comes down to it - never does. May I remind you that here on earth God works through us (including those of us who have knowledge of medicine). We are supposed to be the body of Christ. Yes, we are to be a light in this world. But we can be a light without working miracles, simply by being compassionate, loving and helpful human beings. To be honest I regard the latter far more important for carrying His message than the former. I agree with your assessment of God being our loving father. And the fact that I had loving parents certainly helps me to have faith in our loving father in heaven. A father that will probably never allow for any of his children to burn in a horrible place like hell, who keeps offering His love and sometimes in ways we find hard to understand. My parents loved me dearly but sometimes they'd make decisions that as a kid I found unfair, mean and stupid. Looking back I can often see that they were right and acting in my best interest when they didn't buy me a lollipop whenever I fancied one and made me take bitter medicine here and there. In a much bigger way I trust God to be right. I'm afraid that we were made in God's image is probably the bit of the Bible that's been most often misunderstood as a justification for human hybris. We ought to beware of that. Thanks for the advice, checking up on ones own beliefs is certainly always a recommendable thing. But my relationship with God is very personal as it is. I'm just one of His humbler servants.
Does it not seem that whatever another posts, that we tend to feel we must respond to each statement? That we feel we must counter what another offers in the way of their personal relationship and what they have experienced? I find it remarkable that so few Christians can agree on things of a biblical nature, that our worldly view comes to the fore and we lose what I consider important tenants of God's Word. Are we so vain to think that we have all the answers? Perhaps not, but this is the way it seems to be. This is meant as rhetorical and one may not know what point I'm trying to make. Not even sure myself what I am getting at. LOL I find myself more and more coming to conclusions that rely less on my worldly understanding and more on my spiritual thirst for the things of God. Am I mad? Emotionally? Physically? Well, it doesn't matter for it's in my spiritual being that I find my happiness and growth, the world be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.
Don't worry: while we may have very many differences concerning our opinions on theology and concerning what we feel the Holy Spirit tells us, I'm sure there's loads more we have in common. And I'm sure that among the things we have in common are the most important ones: to love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind and with all our strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Causing death ? Death of what ? In the early stages of pregnancy no livin human exists. It is tough to cause the death of something that does not exist. As far as the Bible is concerned God is fine with abortion. In the case of adultery abortion is commanded in fact. At minimum this shows that God gives man the right to perform abortion.
Some types of contraception destroys the single cell after conception. Your terminology "human life" is ambiguous. Sperm is "human life" every human cell is "human live" The zygote is not "a human"
What is 'life'? http://books.google.com/books?id=L3...ientists argue the definition of life&f=false Read the above in its entirety.
No need to. The question "what is life" has little to do with what is a human. A flower is alive but it is not a human. A human cell is alive but it is not "a human" Carefull not to mix up your adjectives with your nouns. That something is "human life" does not make it "a human"
But it has everything to do with "life", whether that 'life' be human or otherwise. Until science can clearly and unequivocally define "life", then all your banter about 'human life' is nothing but babbling nothingness.
"everything has to do with life" LOL OK lets go with a definition of a "Living Human" There is no such thing as "a living human" without heart or brain. You can take this up with a Coroner but I doubt you will have much luck.
No... lets go with the definition of 'human life' like you originally suggested.. don't change subject criteria.
I understand that my first argument crushes your argument but no worries .. lets look at your claim in relation to "human life" A skin cell is "human life" so what ?
You established the criteria with your first mention of "human life". I challenged that terminology based on the information that I provided with a link. You subsequently wanted to change the wording to a "living human", I said no and insisted on sticking with your original criteria of 'human life'. You keep trying to change it to something relating to the term 'living'. Now I have challenged you to define 'living' or as the case was in my preceding post "while living". Are you now afraid to answer that challenge as well?
The information in your link does not challenge the claim that a living human skin cell is life and you have provided no information to the contrary. The information in your link does in fact give a number of definitions of "life". What it does not do is give a specific definition of "human life" so your challenge of the terminology is not a challenge at all. If we stick to one of the definitions of life given in your link (having the ability to reproduce) the human skin cell meets this criteria for life, and it is human therfor it is "human life" according to the criteria in your link.
Your inclusion of the 'living human skin cell' does not define 'human life' or 'while living'. so what point are you trying to make other than the fact that you are once again trying desperately to evade answering the question of 'what is life' or 'what is human life' or what is 'while living'? You are showing a high degree of cowardice in your consistent evasions of those questions. The original question I posed was 'what is life'. You nor the definitions offered in the article have given such absolute definition. Be honest with yourself if not with anyone else.
I gave a definition of what life was .. based on your link ? You should try reading before name calling so you do not look so silly.
You gave nothing, because those definitions (as seen by reading the entire article) are inconclusive. Not agreed upon by the entire scientific community or by any other concerned community of 'scholars'. NOTHING is what you have given. It is my bedtime now, so I will wait till tomorrow to see what other type of rationalizations you will conjure from your masters domain.
