Quote:
Originally Posted by notofworks
Yeah, I don't either. And I'm not sure that I have a point, but since NotforSale bravely opened the can of worms, I thought I'd go ahead and gush that the subject of healing has always bugged me.
|
I have never seen a miracle of healing even though I have been in services where others have said that one or more had taken place. Most of the time the "miracle" isn't even testified as having taken place at the meeting - we all just go our way and some enthusiastic fellow comes along later and says... "Oh! Oh! I was at this one meeting and there were miracles!"
"Really?" I ask. "I was there too and didn't see anything, nor did anyone else at the time."
Most of these claims are post hoc and real proof is never even offered. Any attempt to verify the published claims of healing are always met with a stone wall of silence and no cooperation in getting to the "proof."
Yet we use the "miraculous" as a standard of salvation? It's like the "speaking in tongues" fiasco.
I believe Jesus Christ, the man born in Bethlehem, was raised from the dead. I believe it, but I can't prove it. I find no evidence to refute it. I believe He really was who He said He was. I am forced to admit that this is my belief and I am bereft of anything that will allow me to beat someone over the head with it. That may have been an intended consequence as well.
But for all of the events for which there is no proof - AND actual evidence to the contrary? Why add that to our faith? If I am asking an unbeliever to believe something that cannot be proven nor disproven (the resurrection) why burden myself with a bunch of stuff that has already been disproven and that really doesn't add anything to my appeal any how?
Hybrid Mode
