Man raised back to life in Jesus' name

That reasoning would suggest that newborn babies are up shit creak without a paddle. I have trouble reconciling that view with the God of Love.

No, I said I had trouble with the reasoning you put forward and the view you expressed.The message of Jesus was that of a loving Father, that doesn't gel with what you're saying. I thought the whole point of the life and teachings and sacrifice of Jesus was that there was a new covenant with God. How loving is a Father who holds his children responsible for the sins of others a long time ago? How loving is a Father who makes these children pay for the sins of others by illness and suffering and death?This paints a very different picture of God to the one that Jesus painted. So, who should I, as a Christian, believe? Shall I believe Jesus who I believe IS the Son of God and Saviour, or should I believe Faith on the internet?My task is made easier for me in that I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe that certain writers may have been inspired by God, but I don't believe that every word is God-inspired. To believe that every word is God-inspired leads only to the conclusion that God knew very little about how His people interacted with the planet around them. We have to believe that He knew nothing about bacteria and viruses that cause disease. We have to ascribe to Him the same primitive level of knowledge that the people had at that time. If God's knowledge only increases as man finds things out, does that mean that God only learns things from our endeavours?Or we can consider that the messages in the Bible were put in such a way as to explain things to His people in ways that they could cope with, in ways that were relevant to their way of life.Another question that this raises for me is, if disease is the payment for sin, are Christians then going against God's will in praying for healing? Surely if God has decided that the punishment is appropriate, who are we to question this? And wouldn't we be committing terrible sins by treating these sin-induced infections with antibiotics etc? If these diseases are the punishment of a righteous God on sinners, surely we are no better than helpers of Satan when we treat and care for these sinners and mitigate or ven cure the punishment that God has sent?Obviously I can't agree with any of that. Compassion, sympathy, empathy, charity are at the core of the Christian message, the message of Jesus Christ. Why would Jesus advocate this if it nullifies God's punishments?As Jar is so fond of saying, the Bible is the map, not the territory. I don't have faith in the Bible because it is not God, I don't worship the Bible because it is not God, I have no other God but the God that I know through Jesus and through my relationship with him. I can't have a spiritual relationship with ink on paper.As an aside, what if a new edition of the Bible appears with a typo? Is the typo God-inspired and if not, why not?Happy New Year to you and yours, keep safe!

Your post says the following Can you point me to the Chapter nad verso of the Bible that you were quoting here If this is not your view of what the Bible says, then why did you write it? Of course I am making the wild assumption that the quotes you provided were in some way made to support your viewpoint. If they are diametrically opposed to your viewpoint, maybe you should put a disclaimer on them.Your post raised a number of questions for me and I tried to explain my position to you so that you could understand where I was coming from. I thought this might make it easier for you to reply to the specific points I made.I would appreciate an answer to post 79

Hi Faith, thanks for the reply.
Firstly can I say that when I said I was only following on the logic which you had presented. You have presented biblical quotes to support the idea that disease is caused by sin. That then leads to the question "Does God approve of us trying to mitigate His punishment?" Can you explain why this is nonsense?In response to me stating you said I wasn't suggesting that you had said any of this - I was trying to exlain where I was coming from, but what you said has raised another question. If the Bible is to be relied on for information on God and it provides two diametrically opposed pictures of Him, how do we decide what picture is correct? The God of the OT and the God of the NT appear like two different entities, or one entity with a split personality, unless you consider what the purpose of Jesus was. Jesus explained to us what this purpose was, the new covenant. So the relationship between God and man was started anew.I am relying on the Bible's information just as much as you are, I'm not making up my own God, but I'm following the teachings of Jesus on God as best I can. If you consider that this leaves me worshipping an idol, I can assure you it isn't one of my own making, but one made by Jesus Christ.Sorry if this is a bit garbled, I'm short of time and brain power. New Year in Scotland can be a bit overwhelming LOLThis message has been edited by Trixie, 01-01-2006 03:32 PM

Faith says It was not a "retort" or a "complaint", but a two sentence comment.Faith also says I'm not actually playing any game at all. I'm attempting to discuss the issue.Faith says It was an honest question, repeated because the first answer I got was Faith says Nope, I'm simply trying to discuss the issues.To my statement Faith replies No, not bullshit, I was honestly trying to explain where I was coming from in my faith. I never stated that Faith worships ink on paper, I stated that I don't. I was implying nothing, again I was trying to explain where I was coming from.Faith says to Percy I haven't made any accusations, I have asked questions. If Faith chooses to see these questions as accusations that's her problem, not mine.Faith says to Percy "Insinuating and irrelevant post"...... yet above Faith stated and all I've done is try to explain my position on disease and sin. Apparently Faith's opinions of disease and sin are on topic, but mine aren't. Figures.Faith says to Percy What have I actually done? Oh I get it, I actually had the temerity to post my opinion on a debate site.To Faith since Percy has requested that this remain a civil discussion and you have managed to turn it into a rather uncivil one, I will withdraw from this thread, leaving you to expound on my "dishonest questions" without challenge. I don't enjoy discussions with people who see accusations in genuine questions and then reply insultingly.Admin, if we can't even ask honest questions and explain our positions, how the hell are we supposed to post any bloody messages? If we can't explain a differing position to someone, are we just supposed to agree with everything they say, without question, for fear of them throwing their teddy out of the pram? You won't get much debate happening if this is the case.

Hi CrashI've had a look at the link provided by randman and it states exactly what he quoted. It also omits any description of the diagnostic test which had been used when the child was 12 months old, ie whether it was antibody or virus detection.From this site I got the following snippet of information about Hepatitis C antibodies. A Google search turns up a number of estimates for the persistence of maternal antibody from approximately 10 months to 18 months.Randman's quote states that a post "healing" test failed to detect any virus, however what we actually need is confirmation that the test prior to healing showed virus present, rather than antibodies to the virus. Without that, the story is just describing exactly what we know passively aquired maternal antibodies do without miraculous intervention.