»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The Bible,
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The Bible, |
|
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams 
|
what can be said about the bible? it is an amazing book. it really does have the power in it to change one's life completely. it offers eternal life and happiness, and promises the existence of heaven and God. far out claims this book makes to be true. an almighty creator: one that speaks and interacts with men in the world, life after death, and the ressurection of a dead man that performed miracles so great, and was born of a virgin too. If Jesus was a man, how could he be god? He was just a charismatic, fanatical religious preacher, that's all. there's lots of those. And God is three entities in one being? now just how is that possible? How could this possibly be true? Why should I trust a book written by just plain old people, over a span of centuries? I've never seen a miracle, or heard a voice from heaven, and theres too many religions in the world to believe this bible alone for eternal life. Hisorically, the bible is infallable. Spiritualy, the bible is fulfilling. Faithfuly, the bible proves true to those who strive to understand it correctly. but fundamentally, the bible is a book, and nothing more... unless one believes. |
||
| © Copyright 2005 derrick gillum - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: I agree. quote: Also true. quote: If Jesus were God, it follows that the kenosis is certainly possible. quote: True, but none of Jesus' quality, as even Christianity's staunchest critics admit. See: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/ Furthermore, if he rose from the dead, I'd say that sets him apart from the competition. quote: Just to make sure I'm clear on what you're asking, are you asking how God who created the universe with a word and sustains it with his power can defy human, rational constructs? quote: If "plain old people" testify truthfully, do we diminish their testimony solely on the basis that they were "plain old people"? That's assuming, of course, that Paul of Tarsus was a "plain old" person - by all credible scholarly accounts, Paul was a first-rate philosopher, rhetorist, and Hebrew scholar. You might ask how I can reconcile reason and belief in my own faith - if you did (and time allowed), my answers might be longer. quote: I've never seen Napolean or heard Shakespeare recite a poem - should I then dismiss the historicity of Waterloo or conclude that Shakespeare was mute? Further, if the Judeo-Christian claims preserved in the Biblical record are more plausible than the canons of other faiths, why shouldn't it be given precedence over the others? quote: Infallible [pertaining to the Bible] - def. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals. Again, I think we agree (albeit unintentially). quote: I agree. quote: Agreed, with my usual legalistic disclaimers (i.e., I can't vouch for those who strive diligently but commit errors in interpretation). quote: Does belief determine reality or is it the other way around? As my professors have reportedly said, "I think you need to develop your thesis." Jim |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'Does belief determine reality or is it the other way around?' Good point. In a nice happy little perfect world- we'd all be able to exist after life just how we believed- while living- that we would. But, uh, if it is the other way around, I'm screwed. My perception of is that I don't know and I won't know, so I'm not going to worry too much about it and I'll let my actions in life speak for my fundamental humanity. All I know is that no book or story that inspires religious faith has ever sounded right to me, and there's no faking that. I'll cross the religion bridge if and when something does call to me. And, Jim, if you're right and I'm not, I guess your faith will speak louder than my actions or my words, huh? (BTW that might sound sarcastic- don't mean it to. Just tired.) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yep.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Well answered Brad. I agree |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Hush, Brad, and Ess: As I see it, faith/belief proceeds from facts (i.e., reality) and actions follow in response to faith/belief. Faith cannot speak at all - but actions can. The problem arises when faith is divorced from reason - granted, faith and reason are distinct, but interconnected in that they are both human capacities. Faith without reason blows people up. Faith with reason tethers us to the ground so that we don't lose sight of our responsibilities to others. Jim |
||
|
Arnold M Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195 |
Well said, Jim Arnold |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-23-2005 06:44 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Faith cannot speak at all - but actions can." The suggestion that actions are more vocative and expressive than spiritual lores, spiritual hopes, spiritual words, influences, sayings, songs, literature, et cetera, that altogether may be part of a faith, is very doubtful. Actions are always part of the service in one way or another, and even more spiritual influences are surely "actions" in another sense, but in the sense of physical statements, I don't think they are ever more expressive, articulatory, or vocative than faith. I think a faith is probably stronger and more influential because it is more linguistic overall: it involves language much more. And language is the means in which we think. When we use language better, we may think better in our heart, and when we think better in our heart we may act better in our deeds. And when we act better in our deeds, we may make a better civilization. Deeds in a roundabout way may be called a secondary speech such as math even may. But we may only use more physical things to speak with only in a narrow and much more limited way, just as we use numbers in a much more limited way than words. Math and actions may never express morals to any such fathom as our faith and a primary language such as English. I will further say a primary language as English is probably more important than faith, actions, and math, as a communication, because if we may not speak primary language well, that we primarily think with, we are hindered in other form of learning and expressions. Faulty language is a dam in the current of learning. And physical actions simply may not be language, nor remove that dam, ever as well as better language itself may. When that dam is removed, and the moral language is found again, the faith may flow , and the actions, ever more swiftly and more clearly. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-25-2005 01:31 AM).] |
||
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
quote: Jesus isn't God.... if you have really read the Bible, then you know that JESUS is the SON of God... not God Himself John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." quote: Well, you probably have seen several of them just not thought it as a miracle. And, I guess I could break down your entire post and respond to everything that you have said, but we are all entitled to our opinions. However, let me add... it seems to me that you put alot of beleif into what you don't beleive is true, and if you question the Bible and the intentions behind the scriptures, perhaps you may want to purchase a book that will help you understand the Bible before you convince yourself that it couldnt possible be true just because it was written by ordinary people centuries ago. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Angel: Your quote merely demonstrates the filial relationship between the Father and the Son. In other words, the Father/Son issue is a relational one, not a qualitative one. It does not rule out the tri-unity of the Godhead. Jesus has been worshipped as God since the founding of the church. He is also regarded as God in the Epistles. Specifically, Paul's Epistle to the Colossians addresses the fully-God/fully-man (i.e., Kenosis) issue. I cannot see how allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture can lead you to a different conclusion. Jim |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Well, I am no Bible expert however, and I guess I should add that we all interpret the Bible in our own way... however with that being said. GOD is GOD and JESUS is JESUS Jesus was born to a virgin, lived, and was crucified on the cross where, he called out to God and gave over his spirit. He was buried in a tomb, rose on the 3rd day and now.... sits at the right hand of GOD in heaven... Scripture as I quoted above says that no one comes to the FATHER except through HIM (Jesus) Now, the scientist will say that he needs proof that they are two seperate beings, and I say... phtttt !! Who can prove that? No one that I know of has been born, lived, died, gone to see GOD in heaven with Jesus there by his side, and then came back down to tell us all about it. Nor, do I hold my breath waiting on such. I think it all boils down to one point really... either you beleive in God or you dont. No one says you have to do either one, and its your choice and your right to beleive the Bible, or not. In the end, its all about your personal choice. A person cannot be MADE to beleive, that is something that is done of free will. |
||
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
pretty good book of tales, bout it as far as it goes in my world. |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Mercy Me  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
timothysangel1973 But if they were seperate beings, wouldn't the holy ghost just be from the father, not the son too? How may you explain the holy ghost--God's spirit-- being both of the father and son, if the father is God, but the son is not? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
/pip/Forum8/HTML/000579.html |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Okay... I found this on a site and IT IS not my original words, yet a quote on a learning site which I have bookmarked. quote: Also.... quote: Copyright © 2002 - 2005 AllAboutGod.com/holy-spirit.htm, All Rights Reserved. Does that help explain it? Or do you still see that the three are seperate? Because I think that even the person that looks for cause and effect in everything will understand the comparisons made to Water and The Egg....  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You suggested that the father and the son were seperate; I was just trying to say that the holy ghost is spiritual evidence that they are not seperate, as he always steps forth and flows of both the father and the son together, not just the father. "The Holy Spirit is one of the three persons of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. " I think "Persons" is a bit misleading. It is clearer to see them as selfhoods, roles, or conditions of God. Just as a woman may be a mother, daughter, and wife without being three persons, God also may be a father, son, and holy ghost without being three gods, or three persons. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-01-2005 12:17 PM).] |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Ok, I think that we are confusing each other lol..... God and Jesus ARE two seperate people. Now, just exactly how the Holy Ghost works - like I said, I am no expert and will surely look into that further. My point was that God is the Father of JESUS Those two are not one entity. God didnt die on the cross, Jesus did. Jesus called out to God and gave over his spirit. Jesus rose from the tomb in spirit to be with GOD. So, yes, I beleive that those two ARE seperate beings. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think the holy ghost is what made me understand the trinity most of all, that I was confused about before. The father and son are felt to have one and the same overall spirit, the holy ghost, and that is why they are known as one being. One being has one overall spirit. And this spirit was seen in a man that was born on earth: Christ. |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
One other thing that I happened upon while reading in the Zondervan Handbook To The Bible by: Zondervan was this: In Matthew 8 verse 20 you will notice the phrase Son Of Man. Now this was a phrase that Jesus often used to describe himself. It emphasizes his humanity (Psalm 8:4) yet points beyond it (daniel 7: 13-14) I think that for most people it is hard to link the three together while still veiwing them all as three seperate beings. For me, I see GOD as the FATHER of Jesus and all mankind, and I see the Holy Ghost (Spirit) as the link between both God and Jesus and mortal man. It is the Holy Spirit that is within us and gives us conviction, and fills us with faith beyond that of what we are unable to see with the naked eye.  The Holy Spirit is therefore explained as "One with God the Father and Jesus Christ, activley at work in the world particularly in and through God's people. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But Christ also says that he is the beginning of all things. That suggests that he is one and the same God as his Father. |
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
OK, gotta put just one "2 cents" in,,,,,as far as this father/son/ghost thing.... Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." So,,,,,now, in my humble opine, dig it.... If you go with the all in one theory,,,seems he's sitting in the water, talking to/about himself, and sitting on his own shoulder... Granted,,,,said "god" can do anything and all that, but, if you go by the teachngs the bible tosses, most things were taught to make us think, to make sense, and to be a way of learning. So, if "god" wanted his peoples to percieve him/son/spirit all in one, why would "he" have had this pivital scene come accross as there being three seperate beings? There are other scriptures that lead one to believe these are three seperate beings/entities: Acts 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them. Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." Thats my thoughts on it,,and, if its any cosolation, my dear Mike is a believer of the all in one theory, with the explination of,"cause thats how it is". Thanx |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But if the father and son were seperate beings wouldn't they have two spirits, rather than one Holy Spirit that they equally share? |
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
Makes sense, But, the "holy spirit", in the texts I mentioned above,,,,to me, is mentioned as a sort of being, not state of spirit of a givin "person". |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ælmihtig god is se fæder. Ælmihtig god is se sunu. Ælmihtig god is se halga gast . Ac þeah-hwæðer ne sind þry ælmihtige godas . Ac an ælmihtig god. þry hi sind on hadum and on naman and an on godcundnysse. "Almighty God is the father. Almighty God is the son. Almighty God is the holy ghost. Although they are not three almighty gods. But one almighty God. Three they are in personas and in name and one in Godkindness." Ælfric's Catholic Homilies: First Series "De Fide Catholica" [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-03-2005 02:19 AM).] |
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
ESS, that comes from a doctorine of one religions beliefs,,,,there are scads and oodles of religious interpritations out there,,, kudos to all and their beliefs(and cool to think how our upbringing and choice of "christian" following does influence how we take it all in) but leave us do one book at a time, so we don't get lost (mainly me). take care |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
[deleted] [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-03-2005 03:18 PM).] |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
 |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Please don't use derision in this forum. It only stirs ill feelings that no one needs. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-03-2005 04:28 PM).] |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Derision 1 a : the use of ridicule or scorn to show contempt b : a state of being derided 2 : an object of ridicule or scorn Hardly my intention and I do apologize if I offended anyone. I was just trying to lighten the mood. As, that is one of my favorite sayings around my house when things are going crazy. Tima |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I believe you. Nothing wrong with lightsome humour. Though it came across as a poke for the post right above (now deleted) I was not able to write unconfusedly what I would, and then your comment came. I respect that you were just trying to uplighten the mood though. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-04-2005 02:02 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Can we make a compromise among these various doctrines, into one doctrine overall, rather than always being so split up and then disagreeing? Was not Christ truly one, so should not our doctrine be one? Is it true that Christ's teachings were truly not split up and broken and disagreeable? If so, should not our doctrines be united, whole and agreeable? If we disagree, as of course we shall, why can't we work to make a compromise and agreement, and then believe in that compromise and agreement? Wouldn't it be better to be united in a belief about Christ, than divided? Just some thoughts. |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
I agree Essorant, however with that being said most of the world has agreed to disagree as far as religious beliefs are concerned. Now, for me, and as for how I was raised and the things that I learned. I learned the following: God is the devine creator of all (including Jesus) Jesus is the Son of God and was sent here to die and save us from our sins The Holy Ghost (spirit) is the spirit that fills us with beleif and conviction beyond what we can see. Now, with that being said, I do beleive that most people can compare/contrast the three. As for me, YES I do see them as three seperate beings and not as one. However, I can see where some may link the three together and see them as ONE united being. I personally am NOT a very scientific person. I do not look for cause and effect within everything and therefore that leaves me to accept things the way they are sometimes and not question which came first. However, I understand how others may question it and I do not judge them for this inquisitiveness (sp) I think that your idea above is a good one, however this would most likely never work because we are ALL raised different and with different beliefs/views on religion as a whole. For instance, and just as an example. I am Christian, and do not accept or beleive the same as a Jehovah's Witness, or a Catholic. That does not mean that I sit and look at those religions and say that THEY ARE WRONG... it just means that what I beleive and practice differs greatly from what beleivers of that faith do. )))HUGS((( Tima |
||
|
time prophet Member
since 2003-07-30
Posts 371In New Zealand Amongst the Ancient Trees |
"but fundamentally, the bible is a book, and nothing more..." A book that contains about as much fact as the prophecies of Nostradamus and any other publication of similar ilk. All of which are open to interpretation and argument. Mostly arguments that have led to all sorts of misery. It belongs in the "Fantasy or Science Fiction" section of the libraries of the world and deserves the same amount of credibility as those publications. Unless of course the libraries have a section for "Drug Induced Hallucinations". |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
And so- with that statement- the argument portion of this thread begins... Anyhow.. My daughter hit me with this, "how can three people be one person" idea just a bit ago, and I answered her this way... (after doing some research on the internet with her)... The Romans (after Caesar) had a system of ruling known as the Triumverate (sp) where in THREE people comprised the ONE office of ruler. It is much (imo) the same effect with the triune G-d. There are three separate entities who- between themselves- are ruling Christianity. Another analogy is that there are THREE branches that comprise of the ONE US government. While they branches are, themselves, three separate entities, they are, none of them, more important more important than the others and all three are needed to make the government work. Essorant- To be united in a belief about Christ, and that since Christ is one, that our belief in him should be one takes away our rights to free thought and belief. Although I was raised Catholic, and have moved to a more generic version of Christianity, my thoughts and ideas about the Big Three are- I would guess- quite different than yours, or anyone elses on here. It is not better, it is not worse, it is only different. Even though we might have the same thoughts that Jesus is the Son of G-d, and He came down for our sins, and all of that, we all have the human fault of reading the same passage in a book, and coming away with separate ideas about what that passage meant. Now, as for time pilot... I would be interested in knowing what gives rise to your thoughts. I am notm interested in the same inflammitory statements that are often used. I am interested in the FACTS that support your statements. There have been many studies done by religious scholars of ALL faiths, as well as secular groups and they have all come away with the belief that there are many many facts that back up the Bible's versions of history. Did they all come away and say that Jesus did all that was written? no. However, they did caome away with astrological proof that there was, in fact a heavenly phenominon that occurred around the time of the story of the Nativity that would account for the bright star in the sky as is written in the Bible. The way that the census was done in those days is as was written in the Bible. The leaders names given for that period in the Bible have been confirmed through many secular sources. There is geological proof taht the great flood DID in fact happen. So, it would seem- to me, anyhow- that the Bible is FILLED with FACTS... or am I having a serious drug-incuced Hallucination?? While I respect your opinion, and the right for you to have it (as much as I disagree with it) I would simply ask that you state your views in a more polite, and less confrontational manner. They took pictures of our dreams |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Well, I am not one to take sides usually, but I have to agree with Ringo on this one especially this: quote: I DO beleive that it IS possible to have different opinions (and beleifs) without putting down, or ridiculing what someone else beleives in. Time Pilot - if you beleive the Bible to be that of fiction then obviously that is YOUR opinion and point of view. For everyone 1 persons that beleives that it is all a great story and nothing more, there are atleast (if not more) 10 more people that say that the Bible is in fact FACTS and TRUTHS. Comparing the Bible and God to that of Nostradamus and his predictions is like Walking through a drive-thru and calling yourself a cheeseburger. Now... with all that said, and as I stated above. We will NEVER agree on matters related to religion and WHY? Because some beleive it is true and just leave it there, and others have to be convinced and need scientific proof that it's all true. Tima |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: I agree with you with the following incomplete list of off-the-top-of-my-head-caveats: 1. Opinions are not facts. 2. Opinions based on facts can be objectively defended. 3. Opinions not based on facts cannot be objectively defended. 4. If God reveals Himself in space and time to human beings, those revelations are factual, capable of being defended, and subject to objective scrutiny. 5. Opinions concerning God should be subjected to rigorous self-evaluation before being voiced publically. 6. Those voicing and holding fast to opinions concerning God that are founded on anything short of fact or on errors of fact should be subject to correction. 7. Correction is not ridicule. Faith is not anti-intellectual. Both are human capacities and are, therefore, inter-related. Divorcing faith from reason, and, by doing so, from scrutiny, is not open-mindedness. Rather, it is decidedly closed. Jim |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
quote: I have to admit that this one left me a little confused. First of all, how does one self-evaluate a beleif, or an opinion. I mean c'mon people can and most times do have VARIOUS opinions about God and religion, and there is no stead fast rule that says you must "self-evaluate" that thought, or feeling before you can turn to your friend and say - "This is what I think" One of the definitions from Merriam-Webster for OPINION is: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. That being said, it does not matter if I have evaluated my beleifs or not, the truth remains that I can have my opinion. The choice comes when I either choose to voice it, or keep it to myself. And, as a Christian, and I am sure that fellow Christians would agree: Part of the Christian religion is to spread the word about God, witness to others about him and generally educate those that do not know. This does not make my opinion, or beleifs supreme in any manner, however my beleifs are based on what I had read in the Bible and what I was taught growing up. I do not think that evaluating either will make my case stronger or weaker in the eyes of someone that has a totally different veiw on the subject. quote: You can't possible "correct" an opinion. You can correct mistakes, and facts, and you can...even further educate a person, but you don't grade opinions like term papers. As far as them being founded on anything short of FACTS I disagree there too. I beleive that Jesus was hung on the cross, tho I have never seen the cross. I beleive that Jesus was buried in a tomb tho I have never seen the tomb, and can't be 100% positive that one even exists. I try to my best to follow the 10 commandments even tho I have never actually seen the stone in which they were written. As far as the "subject to correction" once again, and OPINION and nothing more. quote: Nope, correction is yet again another OPINION unless based on fact, which can then again be interrpreted in more ways that one, and as we are all different, we shall continue to view these facts, and opinons in a different light. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
The question I have is: "What is opinion based on fact, when the opinion concerns a supreme and all powerful being?" Let me give you a few "facts" that have led me to my beliefs: 1) My father spent time in Vietnam (not a huge thing... too many others did as well.) and had several things happen that would make one ssuspicious of a Higher Power. a) He fell into a Punji pit (a trap with spikes to catch your feet and legs) in the middle of a heavy crossfire that the corpsman couldn't even get to him. The PRIEST eventually made it to him, and neither one of them got so much as a graze from anything metal. b) His platoon (30-35 men) was dropped into the middle of a regiment of NVA (over 1,000 men), and he was able to make it back to his extraction point (only 4 of his platoon did) with NO injuries. c) He was brought home on an emergency for my brother to have radical kidney surgery at the age of 9 months. While he was home, his entire unit was wiped out in an ambush... the day of the surgery, a pediatric nephrologist (kidney doc for babies) with a national reputation happened to be visiting a friend, and looked over the chart... my brother did not have surgery. d) too many other examples not involving my family, but other vets I have talked to. From personal experience: a) I was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 14... right before the started with the bone marrow transfusion, and all of the hell and hassle that goes with it, a pediatric endocrinologist who just ahappened to be in the area at that specific dispensary (family clinic) 30 miles from the main hospital, and was only there for that day filling in for another doctor, checked things out, and realized I didn't have leukemia at all, and it was something else (obviously) not fatal. b) When I was a firefighter, there was a C-141 that crashed on landing at the base I was stationed at. I was on top of the truck about 10-15 feet away from the wing whyen the fuel cell exploded (the fuel cells are kept in the wings). People all over were knocked to the ground, yet I was standing on top of a metal roof, with rubber boots on, and I didn't even budge. c)There were many times as an EMT when I was able to save a patient that I was not good enough to save... that I had written off, but just hadn't been dumb enough to quit. d) I wqs driving my new baby (3 weeks or so old) home from her first visit to see her maternal grandmother, when the car in front of me, and one lane over slammed into a car that had pulled out of the parking ot without looking. At the speed I was going, I should have plowed into the accident when the cars separated, and the one car came into my lane. I HEARD someone tell me to aim for the crash. Without questioning, or thinking about it, I kept my foot on the gas, and headed right for where the crash happened. The cars separated, and I made it through the accident scene without so much as disturbing the dirt on my car. Had I stayed in my lane, I would have hit the other car doing 55 miles an hour. e) The day I buried my father, my aunt baought a scratch ticket and won the exact amount that she had paid to rent her hotel for the time she was there. My wife played the pin number of the winning ticket and it came out straight to net her enough money to pay half of my father's funeral. While it is true that all of these could be pure coincidents... I suppose... maybe... I guess... There has got to be some reason that those two doctors were right there where they weren't supposed to be at that exact moment. There had to be a reason that my brother wgot sick at that exact moment, when he could have chosen any other day to have it happen. (two days later, and my dad would have been killed... a week before, and my dad would have been killed.) There has to be a reason why I was able to stand on the top of that truck with a major explosion occuring to provide fire protection for the rescue people in the plane at the time when people qll around me standing on cement were pushed to the ground. There has to be a reason why that trauma code survived (when less than 1% do) and then go on to perform CPR on someone else who survived. There has to be a reason why I heard someone tell me to do something that is so out of the way during a car crash that NO ONE in their right mind would even think about doing it. There has to be a reson why the CEO of an investment firm was delayed getting to work on September 11, 2001. There has to be a reason that my ex-wife allowed me to borrow her car to get to work on March 12, 1998 (the day my dad died) when she hated me with every ounce of her being. (I was able to get there in minutes to take care of things, insead of almost an hour was I required to walk.) There has to be a reason why all of the things happened to everyone reading this who are subconsciously adding their own stories to my little rant. There is no way that coincidence is going to cover it. To finish this off, the ONLY event I needed to prove to me that the Bible is filled with factual people, events, and such... was the morning I saw my daughter being born, and when I got to hold her less than 30 minutes later. They took pictures of our dreams |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
