God reports to a hospital spokesman?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 5, 2014

Intelligent Design, News, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

At least one such hospital employee thinks He must. As American Thinker tells it:

Sam Singer, spokesman for the Children’s Hospital Oakland, has taken it upon himself to dictate the limits of hope and prayer.

Singer is one of the players in the gut wrenching saga of Jahi McMath, the 13-year-old Northern California girl who went in for a tonsillectomy and ended up brain dead. The second girl in two years to suffer severe brain damage under similar conditions at Children’s Hospital Oakland, the case obviously has the hospital on the defensive.

In a jaw-dropping statement, made on behalf of the hospital, Mr. Singer, speaking with greater authority than anyone could have imagined, told the world: “There is, unfortunately, no amount of hope, no amount of prayer that can bring her back.”

If Mr. Singer wants to tell us she is brain dead, fine. If he wants to tell us that an independent physician also declared her brain dead and “there was no question of that,” – fine.

…

A hospital spokesperson should deal in facts. Hope and prayer are not facts. No one should dictate to another man what the limits of his hope should be. Greater than that, Mr. Singers’ revelation that he personally knows that prayer will not work is an insult to people of all faiths. Unless Mr. Singer is speaking on behalf of God himself and not the Children’s Hospital, he is going to have a lot of explaining to do to that divine entity which he so flippantly robbed of power.

The problem with living in a less religious society isn’t that people don’t think about God but that they think God has a position in their bureaucracy (below theirs). 😉

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Mr Jerry, you're confused. The article title is "God reports to a hospital spokesman?" and the breadcrumb on the URL is "intelligent-design". The story is about end-of-life decisions and religion. I am not the one that posted this new story on Uncommon Descent. You do understand that don't you ? Complain to them. In my post to bornagain77 they had brought up a topic of the "fall". It's irrelevant to you. Do you have anything constructive to add about the topic of the OP or you're just having a general whine ?Lincoln Phipps_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

I am quite certain that Mr Phipps would rather have his spleen removed than to stop conflating religion and ID.
When I first got involved in this discussion I believed in Darwin's ideas but never really examined them all that closely. Survival of the fittest seemed an obvious thing. I knew nothing of DNA or the workings of the cell. A real eye opener for me was the debate between Will Provine and Philip Johnson at Stanford. Johnson spent the whole debate on science. Provine spent most of the debate debunking/mocking religion and almost no time on science. It was then that I knew who was right. Similarly Mr. Phipps. If he had the evidence on his side do you believe he would waste one keystroke on mocking religion.jerry_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 15. I am quite certain that Mr Phipps would rather have his spleen removed than to stop conflating religion and ID. It hardly serves his purpose to start grappling with the evidence of design in biology. Frankly, the caliber of ID opponent visiting UD at the moment is rather stale.Upright BiPed_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Mr. Phipps, You seem desperate to intermingle religion and ID. There are OPs on this site that are about religion. This was one of them in a tangential way. This was not about ID. Whether we live in a "fallen world" or not has nothing to do with ID. Atheism is discussed frequently here and the intellectual basis for it. ID actually doesn't automatically obviate atheism but many believe it does. Certainly many atheists believe ID does obviate atheism as they persistently try to undermine it. So in that way they are related to many. So I suggest you stop trying to mix the two ideas.jerry_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

corrected link: The Judeo-Christian Origin of Modern Science – Peter Hodgson – video http://www.counterbalance.org/cosmcrea/hodg-frame.htmlbornagain77_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

lincoln phipps, perhaps it might also interest you to know, since you don't believe science and faith can mix, that modern science owes its origins to Christianity?
Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper By Nancy Pearcey http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Origin of Science Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a patheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle's works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle's works in Latin.. As we will see below, the break-through that began science was a Christian commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo (On the Heavens).,, Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. …. The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise. If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153 The Judeo-Christian Origin of Modern Science - Peter Hodgson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYP4dqkmXDg Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov - (pg. 222) http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal
Care to get into epistemology Mr. Phipps?bornagain77_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Lincoln Phipps you claim:
Scratch ID and the pus that erupts smells like theology.
Since you have such a disdain for theology mixing with science, (although science cannot be rationally practiced without some theological presuppositions in the first place i.e. argument from reason), Perhaps it would interest you to know that Darwinism is itself is built upon Theological premises? In fact ‘Origin’ itself contains far more than a few sentences in relation to God. In fact, Origin can primarily be considered a poorly framed argument for Deism from Theodicy:
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011 I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – article http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/ezrainstitute_ca/bank/pageimages/jubilee_2010_spring.pdf
In fact, to this day, even though Darwinists themselves or obliviously blind to it, Theodicy is a major cornerstone of Darwinian argumentation:
The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek
Don't believe me that Darwinists make theological arguments? Well see for yourself, here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, ‘Darwin On Trial’, in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
And in the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism:
It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012 Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome” There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html
What’s ironic is that Dr. John Avise’s theological argumentation from detrimental mutations for Darwinism turns out to be, in fact (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful ‘scientific’ argument against Darwinism since no one can seem to find truly beneficial mutations that are on their way to building up functional complexity above and beyond what is already present in life (Behe, Sanford): Even the name of the Darwinian blog ‘Panda’s Thumb’ reflects this theological argumentation from Darwinists:
From Discovering Intelligent Design: Two Thumbs Up – May 27, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that “odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread.” Likewise Miller claims that an intelligent designer would have “been capable of remodeling a complete digit, like the thumb of a primate, to hold the panda’s food.” It turns out that the panda’s thumb is not a clumsy design. A study published in Nature used MRI and computer tomography to analyze the thumb and concluded that the bones “form a double pincer-like apparatus” thus “enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity.” The critics’ objection is backed by little more than their subjective opinion about what a “sensible God” should have made. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/from_discoverin_4072531.html
In fact, depite what you believe Mr. Phipp's, Intelligent Deign is far less concerned with overall theological considerations than Darwinism is (and ID is much more concerned with actual empirical evidence than Darwinism is), as Dr. Craig points out in this following video:
Refuting The Myth Of ‘Bad Design’ vs. Intelligent Design – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
Here are some quotes on the theological premises of Darwinists from the now falsified ‘Junk’ DNA argument:
“The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection.” – Ken Miller “Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution … we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed … the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply … our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes” – Jerry Coyne “We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo¬genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.” – Michael Shermer
Thus Darwinism is rife with Theological issues, indeed Darwinism is dependent on them since it has no real empirical evidence. Thus if one were to be consistent in his demand to keep theology out of science then one should demand that Darwinism be taken out of science altogether (as if Darwinism ever had a rigid mathematical foundation to be considered science in the first place)! :) Of related interest: Many times atheists will claim that Intelligent Design is merely a negative argument against Darwinian evolution. And in that regards it is interesting to note the nature and history of the negative form of argument that Darwinism itself takes to try to refute the design hypothesis. The ‘Design hypothesis’ was overwhelmingly accepted as true during Darwin’s day. Both classical neo-Darwinism and modern neo-Darwinism hold that natural selection action on random genetic variations (and mutations) can produce not only new biological form and structure but also the ‘appearance of design’ in living organisms (i.e. The “blind watchmaker” hypothesis). This was, and is, clearly a negative form of argument against design. Darwin argued for this idea in ‘The Origin of Species’ as well as in his letters. Thus Darwin himself sought to ‘explain away’ the appearance of Design, as Darwinists to this day still do. The late Ernst Mayr, and other evolutionists, have put the negative argument against design like this:
“The real core of Darwinism,, is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaption, the ‘design’ of the natural theologian, by natural means.” Ernst Mayr “design without a designer” Francisco Ayala “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1 “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30 living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed” Lewontin “The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.” George Gaylord Simpson
i.e. The main 'theological' purpose of Darwinian evolution in the beginning, and always has been, to ‘explain away’ the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’ in life! Thus the next time someone tells you that Intelligent Design is just a negative argument against evolution, remind them that it is, in fact, evolution which started out as, an still is, the negative argument against the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’ which is pervasive in nature (and which is only becoming more apparent the more we learn).bornagain77_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, graveyards tell a different story. When prayer was prevalent, when birth rates were high, when induced abortion rates were low, when there was no contraception and non-religion was low or even illegal, when everyone was a Christian and went to church every week. Then both children and mothers died; Children died at rates of over 20 times today's infant mortality rates. Mothers died at a rate of over 100 times today's Maternal mortality rates. Miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) rates were just as prevalent. Do you honestly think people didn't pray back then ? It's all they had. There was no medical science that was fit for purpose. If prayer works then it is lost in statistical noise. Today is different. Today we have birth rates being low, induced abortion rates are high, and there is contraception and non-religion is high, and the un-churched are high and church attendance is low. We know neonatal medical science works and it works to such a statistically significant level that it is ludicrous to spend any effort on prayer as a medical regime. So take two placebos and see me in the morning.Lincoln Phipps_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, I asked the question of you "Anyone who thinks God was involved should be asking why is man fixing up god’s mistakes in the first place ?" ..and your reply is that this is not god's mistake but the "fall". Scratch ID and the pus that erupts smells like theology. The US courts really have got ID right where it stands.Lincoln Phipps_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

A few more notes:
Testing Prayer: Science and Miraculous Healing - Candy Gunther Brown at Boston College - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRfLooh3ZOk Study Of The Therapeutic Effects Of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (PIP) On Auditory and Visual Impairments In Rural Mozambique - 2010 CONCLUSIONS: Rural Mozambican subjects exhibited improved audition and/or visual acuity subsequent to PIP. The magnitude of measured effects exceeds that reported in previous suggestion and hypnosis studies. Future study seems warranted to assess whether PIP may be a useful adjunct to standard medical care for certain patients with auditory and/or visual impairments, especially in contexts where access to conventional treatment is limited. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20686441 Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Obviously, science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies. There is no "scientific" (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html#AowIolZKZqed
Quote, Verse and Music;
"The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like "love" make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never." Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I Want to know what love is – Foreigner – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWXMtjUZWM
bornagain77_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

as to
"Anyone who thinks God was involved should be asking why is man fixing up god’s mistakes in the first place?"
Uh Lincoln Phipps, perhaps you should take Theology 101?, we live in a fallen world!
"If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable. Think of it as a place of training and correction, and it's not so bad." C.S. Lewis “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA
i.e. God is perfect, man is not! In other monotheistic religions reconciliation between sinful man and perfect God is suppose to be achieved by the works of each man and by their works alone (i.e. are you good enough to go to heaven?). Whereas in Christianity true reconciliation with God is achieved through the work and grace of God alone since only He is able to bridge the gap of sin and death that separates us from Him. We merely have to accept his priceless gift of grace (for there is truly no way we could ever afford the gift). i.e. the 'propitiation' of Christ!
G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24 "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." – C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity, pages 40-41
As to miracles and prayers: Here is a fascinating interview with Dr. Craig Keener, author of a highly praised, and scholarly, book on miracles:
It's Okay to Expect a Miracle | Christianity Today - Keener Excerpt: I got seven eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead. One was my sister-in-law, Therese. I asked my mother-in-law to tell me about it, with my wife translating from one of the local languages. My mother-in-law described how Therese was bitten by a snake. By the time my mother-in-law got to her, she wasn't breathing. No medical help was available. She strapped the child to her back and ran to a nearby village, where a friend who was an evangelist prayed for Therese. She started breathing again. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/okay-to-expect-miracle.html?start=1 Miracles: Keener's Reflections - video playlist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE6sDPPQ7WA&list=PLC900F8EEB62AE426&feature=plcp Description: Dr. Craig Keener, author of "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" discusses in this web series some of the accounts of people being raised from the dead and people being healed of sicknesses from around the world. For more content visit us at http://asburyseedbed.com/
bornagain77_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

as to
"Anyone who thinks God was involved should be asking why is man fixing up god’s mistakes in the first place?"
Uh Lincoln Phipps, perhaps you should take Theology 101?, we live in a fallen world!
"If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable. Think of it as a place of training and correction, and it's not so bad." C.S. Lewis “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA
i.e. God is perfect, man is not! In other monotheistic religions reconciliation between sinful man and perfect God is suppose to be achieved by the works of each man and by their works alone (i.e. are you good enough to go to heaven?). Whereas in Christianity true reconciliation with God is achieved through the work and grace of God alone since only He is able to bridge the gap of sin and death that separates us from Him. We merely have to accept his priceless gift of grace (for there is truly no way we could ever afford the gift). i.e. the 'propitiation' of Christ!
G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24 "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." – C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity, pages 40-41
As to miracles and prayers: Here is a fascinating interview with Dr. Craig Keener, author of a highly praised, and scholarly, book on miracles:
It's Okay to Expect a Miracle | Christianity Today - Keener Excerpt: I got seven eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead. One was my sister-in-law, Therese. I asked my mother-in-law to tell me about it, with my wife translating from one of the local languages. My mother-in-law described how Therese was bitten by a snake. By the time my mother-in-law got to her, she wasn't breathing. No medical help was available. She strapped the child to her back and ran to a nearby village, where a friend who was an evangelist prayed for Therese. She started breathing again. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/okay-to-expect-miracle.html?start=1 Miracles: Keener's Reflections - video playlist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE6sDPPQ7WA&list=PLC900F8EEB62AE426&feature=plcp Description: Dr. Craig Keener, author of "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" discusses in this web series some of the accounts of people being raised from the dead and people being healed of sicknesses from around the world. For more content visit us at http://asburyseedbed.com/
A few more notes:
Testing Prayer: Science and Miraculous Healing - Candy Gunther Brown at Boston College - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRfLooh3ZOk Study Of The Therapeutic Effects Of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (PIP) On Auditory and Visual Impairments In Rural Mozambique - 2010 CONCLUSIONS: Rural Mozambican subjects exhibited improved audition and/or visual acuity subsequent to PIP. The magnitude of measured effects exceeds that reported in previous suggestion and hypnosis studies. Future study seems warranted to assess whether PIP may be a useful adjunct to standard medical care for certain patients with auditory and/or visual impairments, especially in contexts where access to conventional treatment is limited. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20686441 Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Obviously, science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies. There is no "scientific" (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html#AowIolZKZqed
Quote, Verse and Music;
"The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like "love" make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never." Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I Want to know what love is – Foreigner – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWXMtjUZWM
bornagain77_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

This was no ordinary tonsillectomy but as you lot already know if you read more it involved an adenotonsillectomy, a vulopalatopharyngoplasty and a "submucous resection of bilateral inferior turbinates". Anyone who thinks God was involved should be asking why is man fixing up god's mistakes in the first place ? Even more crazy is then demanding perfection in man's work in this repair !. Listen to yourselves - 'Fire the surgeon, fire the perioperative carers' - yeah that'll fix reality. On the other hand anyone who thinks nature was involved knows that there are limits to human skills and hopefully the post-op monitoring of such a complex procedure is improved over time. After-all it was post-op that complications started not during the operation. If we assume electrocautery techniques were used then complications are rare but still not non-existent.Lincoln Phipps_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

I think it's Mr Singer who needs our prayers.Blue_Savannah_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

There needs to be a suspension, an audit, and some heavy duty responsibility. Especially, if the problem is the anesthesia. KFkairosfocus_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

The hospital should be on the defensive if poor Miss McMath is the second patient to be declared brain-dead after what should have been a relatively simple surgical procedure. Somebody, somewhere in that hospital needs to be fired over this, preferably the doctor who performed the procedure.Barb_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Both his first name and his surname are affronts to his secular-fundamentalist credo. The religious overtones they convey could seriously scare patients.Axel_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

This is silly "If Mr. Singer wants to tell us she is brain dead, fine. If he wants to tell us that an independent physician also declared her brain dead................." No, not fine. After the second girl having a tonsilectomy ends up with severe brain damage, the clowns at Children’s Hospital Oakland shouldn't be prescribing aspirins, never mind making life and death judgements.chris haynes_{January 5, 2014
January
01
Jan
5
05
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply