Faith Healing

Post by **SeattleGriz** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:11 pm

kalm wrote:
SeattleGriz wrote:
Sounds like you belong to a crappy religion, baby hater.
Oh…dodge a deep philosophical rebuttal by making a joke.

Nervous?

No, just late to the game...and drinking. Baby hater.

Padding my post count.

Pwns · Post by **Pwns** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:14 pm

I'll use pro-abortion logic here...

What business of yours is if someone chooses to faith heal their kid?

When life begins is subjective anyways so don't impose your beliefs on others!

Post by **kalm** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:15 pm

SeattleGriz wrote:
kalm wrote:
Oh…dodge a deep philosophical rebuttal by making a joke.

Nervous?
No, just late to the game...and drinking. Baby hater.

Padding my post count.

It was a hypothetical, not a personal example. Freak show christians would be more likely to justify that.

Post by **kalm** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:17 pm

Pwns wrote:I'll use pro-abortion logic here...

What business of yours is if someone chooses to faith heal their kid?

When life begins is subjective anyways so don't impose your beliefs on others!

Pro abortion...

We know life at least begins at birth.

Post by **SeattleGriz** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:18 pm

kalm wrote:
SeattleGriz wrote:
No, just late to the game...and drinking. Baby hater.

Padding my post count.
It was a hypothetical, not a personal example. Freak show christians would be more likely to justify that.

Damn dude. I haven't been drinking that much! Hypothetically, you are a baby hater!

You know I am totally kidding on the baby hater part.

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:27 pm

Cluck U wrote:
dbackjon wrote:
Yes, and beatings. Don't forget, the Bible gives parents permission to kill their children:

If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/stone-rebel ... z3SmG6eA5C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Or, we could have some (those who go by dbackjon) people's, "heroes" just fvck those kids in the azz.

Why let a little child molestation get in the way of worshiping a gay role model, right, jon?

Nah, just send them to the local Catholic Church.

Post by **kalm** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:47 pm

SeattleGriz wrote:
kalm wrote:
It was a hypothetical, not a personal example. Freak show christians would be more likely to justify that.
Damn dude. I haven't been drinking that much! Hypothetically, you are a baby hater!

You know I am totally kidding on the baby hater part.

I love babies! I now have teenagers...

Post by **SeattleGriz** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:50 pm

kalm wrote:
SeattleGriz wrote:
Damn dude. I haven't been drinking that much! Hypothetically, you are a baby hater!

You know I am totally kidding on the baby hater part.
I love babies! I now have teenagers...

I got a huge 15 month old, super active \ inquisitive baby I would loan you. Bastige is the size of a 2 1/2 year old. Mom makes big babies.

SuperHornet · Post by **SuperHornet** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:25 pm

houndawg wrote:Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.

No. A thousand times, no. You're jumping in too soon.

Faith healing is NOT the intentional neglect of ANYONE. Faith healing is a request that God intervene in the situation. The concept of neglect doesn't come in until those requesting God's move form the opinion that doctors have no business treating illness and injury. The problem is that you're conflating the two ideas.

A proper view of faith healing recognizes that a supernatural healing only ONE option out of many that God has available in directing the healing of a sick or injured person. A proper view ALSO recognizes that God guides the doctor's reason and skills to the correct diagnosis and treatment. Anyone who tries to use "faith" as an argument against medical art and science is unreasonably restricting the God they claim to support. And anyone who tries to whitewash any pro-supernatural view as this substandard view is ALSO wrong.

The point being that God can heal supernaturally AND He can also choose to heal through the knowledge and skill of a trained human doctor. From an orthodox Christian perspective, doctors ARE a valid resource, and should be utilized to the utmost. As a Christian, I know MANY doctors in many medical specialties, and they ALL do their jobs well. The presence of a few isolated quacks out there is NOT sufficient grounds to restrict God's ability to use a doctor who has integrity and skill to do the job to which s/he was called: healing sick and hurt people....

Post by **SeattleGriz** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:43 pm

SuperHornet wrote:
houndawg wrote:Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.
No. A thousand times, no. You're jumping in too soon.

Faith healing is NOT the intentional neglect of ANYONE. Faith healing is a request that God intervene in the situation. The concept of neglect doesn't come in until those requesting God's move form the opinion that doctors have no business treating illness and injury. The problem is that you're conflating the two ideas.

A proper view of faith healing recognizes that a supernatural healing only ONE option out of many that God has available in directing the healing of a sick or injured person. A proper view ALSO recognizes that God guides the doctor's reason and skills to the correct diagnosis and treatment. Anyone who tries to use "faith" as an argument against medical art and science is unreasonably restricting the God they claim to support. And anyone who tries to whitewash any pro-supernatural view as this substandard view is ALSO wrong.

The point being that God can heal supernaturally AND He can also choose to heal through the knowledge and skill of a trained human doctor. From an orthodox Christian perspective, doctors ARE a valid resource, and should be utilized to the utmost. As a Christian, I know MANY doctors in many medical specialties, and they ALL do their jobs well. The presence of a few isolated quacks out there is NOT sufficient grounds to restrict God's ability to use a doctor who has integrity and skill to do the job to which s/he was called: healing sick and hurt people....

Thank you Super Hornet, for your post ties into mine.

My wife was three years out from her chemo for bone cancer, when they said it had returned to her lungs and she was pretty much a goner.

I asked for prayers on here, eGriz, AGS and all over Facebook. When the thoracic surgeon got out of surgery, he said we were all good and it wasn't cancer.

The doctors at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance are still in disbelief.

God healed my wife, by my expectations. I don't give two shits if it was a mistake, for I only asked that my wife would be cured. She was. So in my opinion, God met my needs.

Faith healing.

Now for those of you who think I am full of shit, please, let it fly. I don't tell this story to shut people up out of courtesy, I tell it because I believe it to be true. You are welcome to criticize me - I authorize it! We are all brothers here, so let me have it pussies!

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:20 pm

Pwns wrote:I'll use pro-abortion logic here...

What business of yours is if someone chooses to faith heal their kid?

When life begins is subjective anyways so don't impose your beliefs on others!

I totally agree with you..!!!
The government should stay out of this in both cases
If somebody wants to "faith heal" their kid that is fine
If a woman wants to have an abortion instead of faith healing her child to death (also fine)

Post by **SeattleGriz** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:02 am

Chizzang wrote:
Pwns wrote:I'll use pro-abortion logic here...

What business of yours is if someone chooses to faith heal their kid?

When life begins is subjective anyways so don't impose your beliefs on others!
I totally agree with you..!!!
The government should stay out of this in both cases
If somebody wants to "faith heal" their kid that is fine
If a woman wants to have an abortion instead of faith healing her child to death (also fine)

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:56 am

Faith Healing...
The final phase of the "Late Term Abortion" argument

Post by **Wedgebuster** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:30 pm

Wow kalmy, I think you went way over your limit on this expedition!

Brock Landers · Post by **Brock Landers** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:27 pm

SuperHornet wrote:
houndawg wrote:Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.
No. A thousand times, no. You're jumping in too soon.

Faith healing is NOT the intentional neglect of ANYONE. Faith healing is a request that God intervene in the situation. The concept of neglect doesn't come in until those requesting God's move form the opinion that doctors have no business treating illness and injury. The problem is that you're conflating the two ideas.

A proper view of faith healing recognizes that a supernatural healing only ONE option out of many that God has available in directing the healing of a sick or injured person. A proper view ALSO recognizes that God guides the doctor's reason and skills to the correct diagnosis and treatment. Anyone who tries to use "faith" as an argument against medical art and science is unreasonably restricting the God they claim to support. And anyone who tries to whitewash any pro-supernatural view as this substandard view is ALSO wrong.

The point being that God can heal supernaturally AND He can also choose to heal through the knowledge and skill of a trained human doctor. From an orthodox Christian perspective, doctors ARE a valid resource, and should be utilized to the utmost. As a Christian, I know MANY doctors in many medical specialties, and they ALL do their jobs well. The presence of a few isolated quacks out there is NOT sufficient grounds to restrict God's ability to use a doctor who has integrity and skill to do the job to which s/he was called: healing sick and hurt people....

I suppose you believe in homeopathy too. Because hey, who needs critical thinking when you can just believe in magic instead?

89Hen · Post by **89Hen** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:31 pm

Brock Landers wrote:I suppose you believe in homeopathy too. Because hey, who needs critical thinking when you can just believe in magic instead?

What does gay marriage have to do with this?

Brock Landers · Post by **Brock Landers** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:35 pm

Well it is a topic about the Christians ruining everything...

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:53 pm

SuperHornet wrote:
houndawg wrote:Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.
No. A thousand times, no. You're jumping in too soon.

Faith healing is NOT the intentional neglect of ANYONE. Faith healing is a request that God intervene in the situation. The concept of neglect doesn't come in until those requesting God's move form the opinion that doctors have no business treating illness and injury. The problem is that you're conflating the two ideas.

A proper view of faith healing recognizes that a supernatural healing only ONE option out of many that God has available in directing the healing of a sick or injured person. A proper view ALSO recognizes that God guides the doctor's reason and skills to the correct diagnosis and treatment. Anyone who tries to use "faith" as an argument against medical art and science is unreasonably restricting the God they claim to support. And anyone who tries to whitewash any pro-supernatural view as this substandard view is ALSO wrong.

The point being that God can heal supernaturally AND He can also choose to heal through the knowledge and skill of a trained human doctor. From an orthodox Christian perspective, doctors ARE a valid resource, and should be utilized to the utmost. As a Christian, I know MANY doctors in many medical specialties, and they ALL do their jobs well. The presence of a few isolated quacks out there is NOT sufficient grounds to restrict God's ability to use a doctor who has integrity and skill to do the job to which s/he was called: healing sick and hurt people....

Anybody that believes in faith healing probably would be serving mankind best by not reproducing anyway...but still, at the same time-

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:57 pm

SuperHornet wrote:
houndawg wrote:Wrong. Faith healing is intentional neglect of sick child. The problem is that anybody that would believe in superstitious nonsense like faith healing is too stupid to realize that.
No. A thousand times, no. You're jumping in too soon.

Faith healing is NOT the intentional neglect of ANYONE. Faith healing is a request that God intervene in the situation. The concept of neglect doesn't come in until those requesting God's move form the opinion that doctors have no business treating illness and injury. The problem is that you're conflating the two ideas.

A proper view of faith healing recognizes that a supernatural healing only ONE option out of many that God has available in directing the healing of a sick or injured person. A proper view ALSO recognizes that God guides the doctor's reason and skills to the correct diagnosis and treatment. Anyone who tries to use "faith" as an argument against medical art and science is unreasonably restricting the God they claim to support. And anyone who tries to whitewash any pro-supernatural view as this substandard view is ALSO wrong.

The point being that God can heal supernaturally AND He can also choose to heal through the knowledge and skill of a trained human doctor. From an orthodox Christian perspective, doctors ARE a valid resource, and should be utilized to the utmost. As a Christian, I know MANY doctors in many medical specialties, and they ALL do their jobs well. The presence of a few isolated quacks out there is NOT sufficient grounds to restrict God's ability to use a doctor who has integrity and skill to do the job to which s/he was called: healing sick and hurt people....

Take it easy on the paint chips, mmmk?

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:13 pm

The thing is, it is important that we not accept the idea that government has ultimate say over decisions pertaining to the well being of children. We must defend the principle that, when government thinks one thing is best and parents think that some other thing is best, the parents' view rules.

If we don't do that, Pandora's box is open.

SuperHornet · Post by **SuperHornet** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:19 pm

Grizalltheway wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:
No. A thousand times, no. You're jumping in too soon.

Faith healing is NOT the intentional neglect of ANYONE. Faith healing is a request that God intervene in the situation. The concept of neglect doesn't come in until those requesting God's move form the opinion that doctors have no business treating illness and injury. The problem is that you're conflating the two ideas.

A proper view of faith healing recognizes that a supernatural healing only ONE option out of many that God has available in directing the healing of a sick or injured person. A proper view ALSO recognizes that God guides the doctor's reason and skills to the correct diagnosis and treatment. Anyone who tries to use "faith" as an argument against medical art and science is unreasonably restricting the God they claim to support. And anyone who tries to whitewash any pro-supernatural view as this substandard view is ALSO wrong.

The point being that God can heal supernaturally AND He can also choose to heal through the knowledge and skill of a trained human doctor. From an orthodox Christian perspective, doctors ARE a valid resource, and should be utilized to the utmost. As a Christian, I know MANY doctors in many medical specialties, and they ALL do their jobs well. The presence of a few isolated quacks out there is NOT sufficient grounds to restrict God's ability to use a doctor who has integrity and skill to do the job to which s/he was called: healing sick and hurt people....
Take it easy on the paint chips, mmmk?

If you say so, Eric....

Post by **kalm** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:26 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:The thing is, it is important that we not accept the idea that government has ultimate say over decisions pertaining to the well being of children. We must defend the principle that, when government thinks one thing is best and parents think that some other thing is best, the parents' view rules.

If we don't do that, Pandora's box is open.

So parents get to decide what's abusive?

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:03 am

Chizzang wrote:
Pwns wrote:I'll use pro-abortion logic here...

What business of yours is if someone chooses to faith heal their kid?

When life begins is subjective anyways so don't impose your beliefs on others!
I totally agree with you..!!!
The government should stay out of this in both cases
If somebody wants to "faith heal" their kid that is fine
If a woman wants to have an abortion instead of faith healing her child to death (also fine)

Wait a sec Clitz

Indoctrinating your kid as a Christian and teaching him about the bearded man in the sky is bad- akin to murder I think you once said

But allowing the bearded man in the sky to take away your kids cancer- that's ok?

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:54 am

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
I totally agree with you..!!!
The government should stay out of this in both cases
If somebody wants to "faith heal" their kid that is fine
If a woman wants to have an abortion instead of faith healing her child to death (also fine)

Wait a sec Clitz

Indoctrinating your kid as a Christian and teaching him about the bearded man in the sky is bad- akin to murder I think you once said

But allowing the bearded man in the sky to take away your kids cancer- that's ok?

Mental prison (not murder)
Just because I think its stupid doesn't mean our glorious elected officials ought to be managing it
I would like our government out of the family management business all together

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:44 am

Chizzang wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Wait a sec Clitz

Indoctrinating your kid as a Christian and teaching him about the bearded man in the sky is bad- akin to murder I think you once said

But allowing the bearded man in the sky to take away your kids cancer- that's ok?
Mental prison (not murder)
Just because I think its stupid doesn't mean our glorious elected officials ought to be managing it
I would like our government out of the family management business all together

I know I was just fvcking with you.

Agreed

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing

Re: Faith Healing