Can god heal the sick?

Of course he can! (If he existed, that is.) He wouldn't be much of a God if he couldn't, would he? Omnipotence and all that, remember? The question is: why doesn't he? Or rather: why doesn't he always do so? If that is the case, and I concede that it might be, then the conclusion that "God can heal the sick" is still unwarranted. Some elaboration would be in order here, I suppose?

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

In my country, some time ago, a famous television personality died of breast cancer, because she had had no treatment. She had been told by another famous person, a faith healer, that she didn't have cancer, and she believed it. So faith healers aren't always so harmless.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Thank you for your explanation, jar. I think yours is healthier outlook on religion than that of many.But I still wonder how you can reconcile the concept of an omnibenevolent god with the reality of a world full of suffering people. Why would an omnibenevolent (and omnipotent!) god rely on chance encounters with sufferers, when he could put everything right by just wanting it?

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Sorry, but to me that's just not good enough. No sooner have I mentioned omnipotence, or Evil rears it ugly head. A bit ad-hoccish, I'd say. You know, this whole thing with God, Evil, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and all that, it just doesn't add up. If God is omnipotent, Evil is not something he should have to worry about. Apart from the question of how this supposed Evil came to be in the first place (did God have something to do with it? Hmmm, naughty God...), he can just wish it out of existence. Next, while he's at it, he can get rid of suffering. And all of that before breakfast. After all, omnipotence gives God a bit of an edge, wouldn't you say? Indeed there is, let me paraphrase what you said: we are learning about how evolution, sickness, the mind, the weather and societies work.
Yes, we are learning a lot about these things, and as we learn, we are able to take God out of the equation and put some more rational explanations in his place. So far, so good. But then, there you go and reintroduce God: Why God again? Well, I guess it's possible, but I would hardly call it reasonable. Not after all that we've learned about this universe, anyway. Besides, why would God go through such an elaborate procedure to get himself some company? Couldn't he just create them, without all the tedious learning that needs to be done by his, shall we say, 'pet'? Could he not just create us with all the knowledge needed instilled in us, so that we could be his companions right from the start?And another thing: why does God need company anyway? He's supposed to be perfect, he doesn't need us pesky humans (post- or otherwise) to be happy, God supposedly is happiness personified.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

All right, jar, let's concentrate on good and evil for the moment, we'll get to the 'why' later. You say you believe that there really is good and evil. Do you mean by this that good and evil exist objectively, as entities in their own right? Because I don't think that's the case.Good and evil are subjective concepts, i.e. you can always look at good from a different perspective and see evil. It is good when a wildebeast escapes the chase of a lion? From the point of view of the wildebeast, it is. But the lion will beg to differ. It's and old and hungry lion, and this chase took all the energy it had left to survive. The wildebeast getting away is definitely bad news for the lion, for now it will surely die of starvation.Good and evil are not absolutes. From my point of view, they are just that: points of view.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

O, please! Tell that to all those who are suffering fates worse than you can imagine. Tell them they should be grateful to be allowed to suffer, tell them you admire their character. With respect, but this is utter crap! Of course, I should have known. Free will again. Listen, free will and an omniscient god don't sit together well. I'm surprised he makes them even once. I always thought God was supposed to be perfect. Now I hear he makes mistakes. Well, you learn something new everyday, I guess. Tut-tut, I bet they didn't teach you that in Sunday school. You know, there have been times when saying that could considerably lower your life expectancy. What is this? Some sort of DIY theology? Now you are making some sense at last. You don't know the first thing about how much I think we know. I do not pretend that we know everything, or even much. But we do know enough to take God out of at least some of the equations. And guess what? Without God, those equations work even better.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

jar,I fail to see why this is "way off Topic". The concepts of good and evil do have some bearing on the morality of God healing someone or not. Even the 'why' question is connected with it. I'd rather you'd respond in this thread. There are too many threads already, in my opinion.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Since I think there is no such thing as an 'afterlife', for me all that remains is that "needless suffering of innocents does nothing for their character". Did you know that some victims of child abuse become child molesters themselves? So much for character building... There have been whole threads devoted to that subject. I suggest we don't go into it here. If you wish, we can discuss it in the appropriate thread(s). You really need to think these things through a little. Take that first statement: I assume you would say that there is evil in the world. Then, by your own reasoning, God cannot be perfect. Now look at the second statement: "God is perfect in his domain..." Surely you're not saying that God is confined to his quarters, are you? I thought God was supposed to be omnipresent. And after that, they could perhaps readjust a little bit further, to a more scientific world view. I was merely hinting at the fact that you are spouting rather unconventional theological acabadabra. I can respond to nonsense, can't I? You should read more carefully what I said. Yes, I know everything about how much I think we know. You don't know my thoughts, I do. With God: "If you get sick, you should pray to God to get well."
Without God: "If you get sick, you should get medical treatment to get well."
A few centuries of medical science has shown that the last one works a lot better.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Well, I admit it's hard to see those things from the other perspective, but I think they're still man-made. Not EVIL, just very, very, VERY BAD.Sorry to be so brief, but I have to go. Talk to you later.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Could you tell me what God's physical self is made of? And where are his quarters? And how do you know? Well, that's what 'omnipresent' means, thank you for stating the obvious. But how is it that not everybody senses him then? Why can't we train our scientific instruments on him and measure his presence directly and unequivocally? If that is the case then you've just ruled out the causative connection between suffering and character building: now all of a sudden it's you who decides what your character is going to be like. Please, get your act together. Why must I pay for something that's free? You have an odd conception of the word 'fundamental', I must say. If the fundament is wrong, the whole structure is at risk. I think that if 'fanatic', 'hardline' and 'narrow-minded' are among the words you are looking for, I would agree with you. Yes, well, I've heard that one before. As soon as someone points out the inconsistencies between the various religious doctrines, one of them ends up coming from 'false prophets'. Tell me, how do you know your information isn't false? You need to catch up on things, because that revisionism started some centuries ago, with the Enlightenment. The result is called 'science'. I suggest you study all the source material, not just an odd haphazard collection of myths from a small tribal desert community of a few thousand years ago. You could start by looking at the sacred texts of other cultures, then look at secular philosophy, then look at scientific discoveries, then use your own brain a bit and then maybe draw some conclusions.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

I'm trying to make you see that you make all kinds of unsupported assertions and that you interlace them with inconsistencies. On top of that, you are being evasive as soon as you are asked to provide some substantive comment for your blanket statements. This is not a very productive attitude in any discussion, and it doesn't raise my hopes for this particular one very much.{edited to correct spelling of 'inconsistencies'}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-05-2004 06:52 AM

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

No, I'm not an insomniac, if that is the word you're looking for. If it makes you happy... It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Read a book on logic. You do realise that 'taking God out of the equation' is an expression, don't you? Or should I fear you are so naive as to expect real equations from me?{edited to correct typo}This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-05-2004 07:06 AM

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

So you know how to use a dictionary. I'm impressed. Keep looking. Nice wordplay. But you may not realise that what you ask is more to the point than you think. Taking God out of the equation is among the effects of doing science. And one of the pillars of the scientific method is, indeed, doubt/uncertainty. So your deliberate misinterpretation of the word 'expression' has unwittingly led you to produce a rather sensible thought. Pssst... I'll let you in on a secret of rhetoric: don't overextend your metaphors. I did just that, and look what happened to your poor circuitry.
Now will you please stop moaning about those equations? "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought: On Which Are Founded The Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities", by George Boole. Since you seem to prefer old books, that's the one I'd start with.Did you hear about the dyslexic Satanist? He sold his soul to Santa.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Pssst... jar! Look back one page...

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.