« How Tim Keller Made Peace with the Wrath of God | Main | I’m Not a Christian Because It Works for Me »

April 04, 2013

Comments

Apologies,

One-one-one? Well, how about instead "one-on-one with Love Himself".

Go there.

scblhrm,

I'm headed into a meeting, so for the moment, I'll address your very first sentence only, as it is untrue, and it's all I have time for at the moment.

You wrote:

"You did not claim nature and nurture."

The very first comment I made on the subject was on April 05, 2013 at 11:06 AM:

"...Natural selection teaches us that characteristics that good for the species survive. Those characteristics that are not good don't survive, or are minimized. Members of a species that are willing to help the group to survive (the moral) would outlast those loners that only care for themselves (the immoral). The moral would reproduce more than the immoral. The immoral would not find as many willing partners. In this case, one could reasonably conclude that morality is genetic as well as cultural..."

I also made several subsequent comments regarding the cultural/nurture component of morality, including the following one on April 07, 2013 at 04:44 PM:

"...If kids are raised with love and kindness, most turn out similar regardless of faith. Those that are unloved and abused usually pass it on regardless of faith. Neither you or I go around raping, stealing, or killing, and most adults don't regardless of faith..."

Jason

scblhrm,

”You did not claim nature and nurture. But even when you do here you are still facing an inherent open door to the ugly stuff you think your worldview does not embrace. You claimed that the itches which natural selection values is what is good.”

That is simply incorrect. What I claimed is that characteristics that are good for the survival of the species survive through natural selection. That is basic science. I also never claimed that non believers do not engage in “ugly stuff”. I specifically said that people behave both good and bad across the spectrum of faith/non faith. Statistics bear this out. Look at rates of divorce, theft, rape, etc. The rates are the same or higher among self identified Christians as they are among non Christians.

”Now, sex slavery is on the rise, as the appetites which drive the genome are alive and well, and you have thus far ignored this.”

There was no intention to ignore this, so I’ll clearly address it now. Yes, sex slavery is on the rise. However, rates of slavery in general, as well as murder, and many other violent crimes are lower now than they ever have been in recorded history.

The genetic/natural selection factor in our morality doesn’t mean that we as a species become perfect. It means that overall, through time, behaviors that are helpful to the survival and health of the species win out, and behaviors that are harmful to the survival and health of the species diminish. It doesn’t mean that the harmful behaviors are ever gone. I never claimed that.

”The “nurture” part is wholly arbitrary and goes against our own itches which natural selection values.”

Sure, there are conflicts between nurture and nature. No one is denying that. We all make decisions daily because of nurture that go against our nature.

”Nothing you have said so far about naturalism (etc) tells me that love is “better” than any other itch inherently. When another appetite comes along which provides the species with more durability and thus displaces love, I see no way for you to cling to love any longer. In fact, you won’t be able to for the genome will no longer possess it."

This is where I think you might not understand natural selection. Love would not have emerged as a dominant characteristic if it was not in fact dominant. And again, I’m not limiting morality to genetics. I’ve said all along that culture plays a big part.

On all your "god A and B and C and Aliens" comments:

1. ”…your requested 90%/99% ratio…” I never demanded a 90%/99% ratio. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, I stated that I had not seen and was looking for any qualified evidence. The 90%/99% ratio is something you made up entirely on my behalf and then argued against it. That’s called a straw man argument.

2. Using scripture to defend scripture is an unsound logical approach and is meaningless to a person that does not consider scripture to be credible. That's another entire debate though I think.

3. I don’t believe in any god because I’ve seen no credible supporting evidence. I’ve made that abundantly clear. Arguing that I can’t claim “my god is not an alien” is therefore ridiculous and another straw man argument.


”But you have not reasoned your way out of Scripture, for Scripture reveals a whole other reality than that which you are describing to have reasoned your way out of.”

This “whole other reality” that “scripture reveals” is a reality that only exists in your thoughts and emotions, a fact supported a a virtual lack of personal direct evidence. That’s my entire point. If Christians had any personal direct evidence outside of this, then they wouldn’t need to rely on scripture to “know” whether or not their god was real.


”Finally, I told you that I have had 20 or 30 1st hand accounts and you dismiss this as if I am or was too stupid to have asked the same reasonable questions you would ask...You discount what I tell you for the same reason you discount what John tells you, for John’s 1 plus my 30 cannot be enough.”

I did not dismiss your accounts. You never answered my question as to whether or not you had personally witnessed your 20-30 accounts. That was a point. I don’t know any Christian (except John Willis) that has stated that they saw the type of evidence I asked for with their own eyes. All of the accounts I’ve heard are at least second hand, i.e. “someone I know (and trusted) told me X”. That is not the same as seeing X with your own eyes.

I did not say you were “too stupid to have asked the same reasonable questions”. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Other than a couple of very early comments (which I thoroughly regretted and apologized for more than once), I have been very respectful towards you and everyone else on here. To imply otherwise is unfair and you know it.

I also never discounted John Willis’ story. I have repeatedly, over, and over, and over, shown his story respect. I continually have said that I accept his story. To say otherwise is knowingly deceptive.

”You assert that it is not possible to know God “in that way” to the conclusiveness with which we know other persons here. That is nonsense for two reasons. First, Scripture (the Christian Scripture, not the non-christian scripture you are talking about) says we can Know Him in that way, to that degree. Second, “If God” exists then He is the very foundation of all personhood and as such any dynamics we have with and in Him can and will be more concrete in that Vertical interaction with the Un-Derived than any dynamics we could ever have here in the Horizontal with the Derived.“

It’s "nonsense" to you because of your worldview. It’s incoherent to you because of your worldview. If god exists, then yes you can really know him. If god does not exist, then knowing him is all in our heads by definition. It’s pretty simple.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “non-christian scripture you are talking about”. Do you really think my problem is that I misinterpreted the bible? If so, then you haven’t really listened to (or perhaps understood) anything I’ve said in this entire 300+ post forum.

People can interpret the bible in countless ways and can juggle scripture and dig into nuances all they want. The USA has more than 30,000 Christian denominations as a demonstration of that fact. The bottom line is that if god is real, he should show up directly and personally outside of our thoughts and emotions at some point and leave no doubt, and that “some point” should be when it matters, especially if eternity is in the balance. I’m not sure how many ways I can restate my point of view.

”In Scriptural terms (The real New Testament, not the non-christian version which Jason seems to be struggling with), we for all practical purposes are in the equivalent of poor Pastor Timothy’s drought, though we may not be quite fully there yet for we still have those happy but rare medical perplexities in answer to prayer. Yet we may for all we know be moving towards something worse than Paucity! and that is Matthew’s prophecy where the Living God is out-performed for who knows how long. That is the Scriptural version of reality, and, therefore, I honestly believe we will (or our descendents will) see that day when god B or C (and so forth) will out-power and out be-dazzle the Living God who just is Love. “Amazing signs and wonders! Yes! You See!” Now, there is actually a way to Know-Person which makes all of that of no account, and that is also what Scripture teaches us is available to us, we who are also persons. Personhood itself, Love itself, Mind itself, Being itself. Such is the bedrock atop which all of reality finds its rest.”

Honestly and at the risk of offending you, here’s what I hear when I read your statement above:

“To all the Christians here, don’t worry. Jason’s lack of evidence just means he interpreted the bible wrong. If god isn’t showing up now, just wait, it’s going to get even worse! If you see anything outside of what we believe that seems like it’s working, just ignore it. Keep your head down and rely on faith. Nothing else matters.”

Can you see how defensive and illogical your statement is to a person like me?

”To love someone would mean on some level to employ the gift of correction. John noted to Jason this, "But I actually think that out of all of us here that have interacted with you in this very long thread that Brad has been the most loving."

I previously conceded that Brad’s “correction” was out of love. Can you concede that those who disagree with you might also be motivated by love? Just as Brad was concerned about my eternity because he believes that there is one, can I not be concerned about your “here and now” because I don’t believe in the hereafter?

”When someone reasons himself out of a non-scriptural version of scripture, and, when someone is unable to face the ugly things his own worldview values because he himself values love, it is in fact love to offer insight, correction, and so forth.”

Which of the 30,000+ Christian denominations in the USA has the correct interpretation of scripture? I submit that I “face the ugly things in my worldview” better than ever now that I am not bound by an arbitrary, unprovable context that ignores reality and evidence. I offer my “insight, correction, and so forth” here because I love my fellow man.

With respect,

Jason

Jason,

Nothing you have said has shown me that ugly things rising in frequency are not valued by natural selection.

If natural selection values ugly things, and it does, then ugly things are good.

If you descide to de-value something, and I descide to value it, how do we descide who is right? 51%/49% vote?


scblhrm,

I don't think you are honestly debating me now. I spent a considerable amount of time and took great care to answer your post point by point, especially after being accused of incoherency and the inability to reason.

In response to my post, you ignored all my counter points. You ignored your logical fallacies that I pointed out. You ignored that fact that you incorrectly stated that I did not claim nature and nurture even though I presented date/time/quote to disprove your remark.

In an honest debate, you would address these things before copying and pasting previous questions or asking new ones.

But, I will answer your question anyway.

I previously stated:

"The genetic/natural selection factor in our morality doesn’t mean that we as a species become perfect. It means that overall, through time, behaviors that are helpful to the survival and health of the species win out, and behaviors that are harmful to the survival and health of the species diminish. It doesn’t mean that the harmful behaviors are ever gone. I never claimed that"

If by "ugly things" you mean things that are harmful to the survival of our species, then natural selection does NOT "value ugly things". If it did, then we would not exist. If natural selection valued murder, then we would all be dead.

However, as previously state, please remember that "good" and "good for survival" are not necessarily the same thing. I think they often are, as in the example of "love". If "love" wasn't good for the survival of our species, then natural selection "says" that it wouldn't have emerged as a dominant characteristic.

As previously explained, there is also a cultural component to morality. As a species, most societies have decided that rape, murder, etc are unacceptable, we create laws, and we enforce them. In that regard, we decide all the time who is "right".

Jason

How do descide who is right?

Hammmm...blip somehow.

So "most" = Right?

Really? That's how you answer my challenge that you are not debating me honestly? By doing the same exact thing.

How about you make a tiny effort at honest debate and admit that I did claim nature and nurture and that you were incorrect in your statement that claimed otherwise?

If you won't at least do that, then there's no point in continuing. No matter how many points I make, you will ignore them and keep asking questions, never satisfied until you get the exact answer you are looking for. That, my friend, is not a debate. It's a joke.

You said "most societies".

I assume you meant it.

Most equals right.

I didn't say it Jason.

You did.

Did you mean it?

I'll try one final time to see if you have any interest in a honest debate.

On April 18, 2013 at 01:16 AM you stated:

"You did not claim nature and nurture"

On April 18, 2013 at 09:10 AM I completely disproved your above statement with the following statement:

"The very first comment I made on the subject was on April 05, 2013 at 11:06 AM:

"...Natural selection teaches us that characteristics that good for the species survive. Those characteristics that are not good don't survive, or are minimized. Members of a species that are willing to help the group to survive (the moral) would outlast those loners that only care for themselves (the immoral). The moral would reproduce more than the immoral. The immoral would not find as many willing partners. In this case, one could reasonably conclude that morality is genetic as well as cultural..."

I also made several subsequent comments regarding the cultural/nurture component of morality, including the following one on April 07, 2013 at 04:44 PM:

"...If kids are raised with love and kindness, most turn out similar regardless of faith. Those that are unloved and abused usually pass it on regardless of faith. Neither you or I go around raping, stealing, or killing, and most adults don't regardless of faith..."

Either you are honest enough to admit you were wrong or you aren't. If you aren't honest enough to admit that you were wrong when proven in black and white, then there is no point in continuing to debate.

scblhrm,

I did NOT say "most equals right". Again, you are creating your version of a tiny fraction of much more complex arguments I have made in an attempt to set up straw man arguments. You ignore almost all my points and center in on some phrase you think you can redefine for me and then "get me" with it.

In regard to the cultural component of morality: Almost all societies and holy books going back to the beginning of written history have some version of the "golden rule". I think that's a far superior way to "decide" what is "right", i.e. I don't do anything to you that I wouldn't want you to do to me.

Jason

Jason,

I said this: "You did not claim nature and nurture. But even when you do here you are still facing an inherent open door to the ugly stuff you think your worldview does not embrace"

If you think I remember all 300 of these, and accuse that of me as dishonesty, then, well, I think you are wrong.

It does not matter about nurture Jason.

Nothing you have said has shown me that morality is nothing more than purely a matter of preference. Nor have you shown how nurture is seperated from genome. Is there something in us which transcends the genome called "nurture"?

Jason, in your worldview nothing transcends the genome and "most" really is "right" per your last statement.

scblhrm,

The point is when proven wrong, you don't admit it. I didn't call you dishonest for making the initial mistake. I'm calling you dishonest for not acknowledging your mistake after I pointed it out, when given multiple opportunities to do so.

How is it that an atheist like me can admit a mistake and apologize to you, but you as a Christian are not capable of the same thing?

Baffled,

Jason

So,

Most is Right?

so, incapable of admitting wrong?

scblhrm,

It's such a simple black and white mistake that you could easily rectify.

Again, your original misstatement did not upset me or cause me to question your honesty in the least. I calmly pointed out your mistake with black and white documentation (dates/times/quotes). I gave you several opportunities to acknowledge your mistake.

Your continued refusal to do so reveals a major character flaw, i.e. dishonesty and/or arrogance. If you can't muster the character to admit a simple mistake, then you have shown that you are unwilling to honestly debate me.

As such, I'm done.

Okay Jason. Good luck.

Don't follow the string of amazing miracles. According to Matthew's prophecy, that string is going to lead many to believe in false gods as they out-perform the Living God.

People who only follow miracles, rather than Know-Person, really have no other choice.

I'm not too worried about amazing miracles because that is all in your head with no connection to evidence or reality. I'm not concerned with Matthew as it is a plagerized copy of the mythical story in Luke.

Good luck to you too. The sooner you live in reality, the better off you will be.

Best wishes,

Jason

*Mark, not Luke.

Doesn't matter now anyway. Bye

Hi, Jason,

Looks like this thread is coming to a close and I am still somewhat behind! I wanted to address the 3 verses you gave me in response to my question to you about promises. (Thank you for your answer, BTW:-) ) Hope there's still time to do that...

The first was John 14:14. The whole of chapter 14 is a conversation between Christ and His disciples. He knows that they are confused, hurt, and saddened by the fact that He's leaving them. He uses this time to explain that He needs to go so that the mission of the dispersing gospel can take hold throughout the world. He tells them that the Holy Spirit can only come after He leaves and that they can always come to Him via prayer and He will help them with anything to promote the gospel. The guidelines He gives them for asking for His help are specific in nature--that their petitions are made humbly, that they are for the purpose of furthering His mission with the goal to exalt the name of Jesus and glorify the Father through His Son. Some of the things they would need in order to reach people for Christ might entail miracles and He promised them He would enable them to do what needed to be done to grow His body of followers. Today the gospel has made its way throughout the world, and we are indwelt with His Holy Spirit and the time of miracles is behind us.

The second verse you brought up was James 5: 14-15. I like what Matthew Henry's Commentary says about this:

"We have particular directions given as to sick persons, and healing pardoning mercy promised upon the observance of those directions. If any be sick, they are required, 1. To send for the elders, presbyterous tes ekklesias —the presbyters, pastors or ministers of the church, v. 14, v. 15. It lies upon sick people as a duty to send for ministers, and to desire their assistance and their prayers. 2. It is the duty of ministers to pray over the sick, when thus desired and called for. Let them pray over him; let their prayers be suited to his case, and their intercessions be as becomes those who are affected wit his calamities. 3. In the times of miraculous healing, the sick were to be anointed with oil in the name of the Lord. Expositors generally confine this anointing with oil to such as had the power of working miracles; and, when miracles ceased, this institution ceased also."

The last verse you mentioned was Luke 17:6. The apostles (disciples) were asking for an increase in their faith. Some scholars think this was in response to Christ's previous instructions to them to readily forgive injuries made against them--as in, "We're going to need a whole lot more faith to be able to take the onslaught You're telling us will come"; other scholars think the request for an increase in faith was the result of Christ's chastisement of them for being unable to bring about a miracle, so Christ told them about having faith as small as a mustard seed and the power that a faith like that would have. The object of their faith was to be in the power of Christ, not in their own power. In Him resides all power and ability--in Him all things are possible. Yet our focus, our goal and our attitude must be constantly checked that we grow in true faith for His glory alone and not our own gain--a tough thing for those gifted with miracle working. Again, that season has passed, but the need for increased faith has never been greater.

I thought the commentary mentioned above ended James 5 with some thoughts that are far more eloquent than my own, and I share them with you as my parting post:

"If we are instrumental in the conversion of any, we are said to convert them, though this be principally and efficiently the work of God. And, if we can do no more towards the conversion of sinners, yet we may do this—pray for the grace and Spirit of God to convert and change them. And let those that are in any way serviceable to convert others know what will be the happy consequence of their doing this: they may take great comfort in it at present, and they will meet with a crown at last. He that is said to err from the truth in v.19 is described as erring in his way in v. 20, and we cannot be said to convert any merely by altering their opinions, unless we can bring them to correct and amend their ways. This is conversion—to turn a sinner from the error of his ways, and not to turn him from one party to another, or merely from one notion and way of thinking to another. He who thus converteth a sinner from the error of his ways shall save a soul from death. There is a soul in the case; and what is done towards the salvation of the soul shall certainly turn to good account. The soul being the principal part of the man, the saving of that only is mentioned, but it includes the salvation of the whole man: the spirit shall be saved from hell, the body raised from the grave, and both saved from eternal death. And then, by such conversion of heart and life, a multitude of sins shall be hid. A most comfortable passage of scripture is this. We learn hence that though our sins are many, even a multitude, yet they may be hid or pardoned; and that when sin is turned from or forsaken it shall be hid, never to appear in judgment against us. Let people contrive to cover or excuse their sin as they will, there is no way effectually and finally to hide it but by forsaking it. Some make the sense of this text to be, that conversion shall prevent a multitude of sins; and it is a truth beyond dispute that many sins are prevented in the party converted, many also may be prevented in others that he may have an influence upon, or may converse with. Upon the whole, how should we lay out ourselves with all possible concern for the conversion of sinners! It will be for the happiness and salvation of the converted; it will prevent much mischief, and the spreading and multiplying of sin in the world; it will be for the glory and honor of God; and it will mightily redound to our comfort and renown in the great day. Those that turn many to righteousness, and those who help to do so, shall shine as the stars for ever and ever."

Earnestly and with love,
Carolyn

Hi Carolyn,

This will be my last post.

Thank you for your response and your kindness throughout these posts.

I understand your perspective and the theologies of the apologists comments you posted above.

Again, the evidence I'm looking for is not limited to miracles and is not based on specific scriptures. That's why I hesitated to post them, because the specifics of the bible are not what I am concerned with.

The evidence I'm looking for is anything direct and personal in anyone's life outside of their thoughts and emotions. I think this is reasonable for a claim of any god, i.e. it shouldn't all be in our heads. There should be something tangible and something easy for an omnipotent being to provide.

Thanks again for your kindness. I'll let whoever wants to have the last word.

Jason

The “out there” substrate external to our body which we know via our mind “in here” abounds before us.


Another person’s love. Another person’s body. Another person’s Mind. Mind itself out there in my beloved. Shall I say of my beloved she is mindless and thoughtless lest she show my eyeball and my finger her thought, her mind? Of course not. Such is not how we know what we know. There is more. So much more. History. Archeology. Historicity of texts. Fulfilled prophecies; nearly 600 alone in Love’s Cross: sooner or later Love must pour Himself out for His beloved, as such just cannot be otherwise, for that is what love does. And more, so much more. Galaxies. Universe. Earth. Multi-verses. Content within words out there. In a reverse-vector we have the proof of Him in just all of science for all data whatsoever on all matter and all energy whatsoever is found pointing towards Precursor at every last data point, always, every time. All of physics and all of chemistry testify to us, forever screaming in our ears, that they cannot self-account for there just is no matter anywhere, ever, no energy anywhere, ever, which testifies of itself as having even a hint of capacity of the sort which can play the role of our uncaused cause but instead all data points always shout, always, at every scientific data point ever discovered thus far, this: “I hail from some other Precursor!” Thus all of physics and all of chemistry “out there” testify to us via our mind in here, by pure scientific data, and in fact all of scientific data, that their own Precursor lies elsewhere, outside of all that is themselves, and thus we find yet the biggest “in here” (our entire universe) screaming to us of yet the biggest “out there” (some immaterial something).

And there is more, so much more. Personhood “out there” in another person, which is just the same as out there in another Person, all of whom we know “in here” with thought, with mind, with feeling, with reason, yes all “in here”. Person knowing Person with such “out there” and “in here” interactions in a myriad of tasted levels just is how Person tastes Person. It is foolishness for me to think my wife’s physical body is the end of her personhood for my eyeball and my fingertip have never tasted her value which I just know exists. Logic itself “out there” in another person. Reason itself “out there” in another person. Thinking itself “out there” in another person. My logic “in here” tasted by another “out there”. My reason “in here” tasted by another “out there”.


And still there is more, so much more. For some of us, undeniable miraculous touches in the body. For some of us, undeniable miraculous touches in the mind. For some, undeniable miraculous touches in the spirit. I’ve never seen my own mind “in here” from “out there”. Nor the mind of another person “out there” from somewhere other than “in here”. ALL that I know I know only via the “in here” that just is “me”. I’ve never seen one of my thoughts. I’ve never seen another’s thoughts. Yet we know we are not mindless and thoughtless, neither me “in here” nor another person “out there”. We know minds exist, though we have never seen one with the eyeball, never touched one with the finger. And feelings, though we have never seen one with the eyeball, never touched one with the finger. And emotions, though we have never seen one with the eyeball, never touched one with the finger. And Logic, though we have never seen it with the eyeball, never touched it with the finger. And Reason, though we have never seen it with the eyeball, never touched it with the finger. My wife’s love. My child’s value which transcends forever mere genome, mere body, for in the genome we cannot spy with the eyeball my child’s value which I know exists, and in the genome we cannot touch with our finger my child’s value which I know exists.


But all that stuff out there, and it is out there, all of this plethora loaded with Love’s Presence “out there” yet pales in comparison to Love Himself. For such Love as Love Himself is immutable and everlasting and therein makes a distorted oddity out of that mutable and inconsistent self-serving love found in mere natural selection and its slave named nurture. Nurture pretends it is “free” of genome to comfort itself that it is not but a deterministic dance to another’s music rather than its own music but in naturalism there just is no such thing “free” of genome. Ages ago when the genome was valuing anything but real love, and was, on the whole in most places valuing war, and slavery, and power, and tooth, and claw, yes tooth and claw in that climb out of the slime, ages ago back then when Ugly was the Norm, Love Himself held still, yet Immutable, yet Love. That was then. But what of Now? Well nothing has changed. Love Himself, yet immutable, remains unchanged, but not so with the genome and its slave named nurture, for in the now we find the world’s oldest profession doing what every father dreams for his daughter increasing in frequency worldwide in most places as prostitution betrays the fact that the genome’s appetites which perpetuate it are alive and well. And in the Now we find yet another dream which every parent has for their child increasing in frequency worldwide in most places as porn addiction betrays the fact that the genome’s appetites which perpetuate it are alive and well. And in the Now we find yet another dream which every parent has for their child increasing in frequency worldwide in most places as sex trafficking betrays the fact that the genome’s appetites which perpetuate it are alive and well.


But all of this was Then and is Now, but what of Tomorrow? It is all the same, as more human beings killed more human beings in wars between 1900 and 2000 than all wars combined prior to yesterday, and, unless Mankind enslaves every collapsing galaxy, enslaves every expanding supernova, he finds himself fated to his sinking ship as the pathetic cry of his Mantra Survival! will be, eventually, merely a Falling Flag by which to hide his face from his Mantra’s delusion.

Yet Love Himself, that Immutable and Everlasting Love continues on, for Love was, Love is, and Love will be, and this forever. And we His Beloved thus too, there within His Passion.

On chasing after miracles:


"Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them."


It seems John did not get to see most of Jesus’ ministry unfold. Being stuck in jail he has but witnesses and prophecies to lean on, though certainly he had a touch or two or more outside of that. Yet in jail is where he asks in doubt, painful doubt and thus if only he could have seen it with his own eyes though. Now that would have been evidence. Unfortunately, John's very life was a bit of prophecy, and as Jesus came on the scene, he had to decrease and Jesus increase. Jesus sends a message to John from Isaiah that a prophecy is fulfilled as evidence for his comfort.


Jesus then gives us a prophecy of His Own about miracles, and it’s a bit odd. He tells us that eventually some false-god-a or some false-hope-b will show up and do better at be-dazzle-miracles than the Living God during a soon to come “age” or “time”. “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”


These days with all of us tasting the Painful Paucity of poor Pastor Timothy for whom all that is granted from the Great Apostle is the wimpy line of, ““Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” it will certainly be a challenge as the false gods False-Hopes show up and do “great signs and wonders”. The folks who chase after nothing more than miracles, rather than Knowing-Person, will be, eventually, granted what they thirst for (be-dazzle sort of stuff!) and, because they do not Know-Person, they won’t be able to recognize the interior content within and behind the miracle they see before their eyes.


Now, when we see this begin to happen before their eyes, we be seeing Jesus’ own prophecy fulfilled right before our eyes. And the stage is well set in the human mentality on the world stage now for just this set of circumstances to unfold.


Yes, miracles are evidence for John, for, though he does not see them from his jail cell, he has reliable testimony that Isaiah’s prophecy was being fulfilled. Reliable witnesses carry a bit of weight. Fulfilled prophecy carries a bit of weight. Fortunately, miracles will one day carry another kind of weight and that will be the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy regarding the soon to come age or time of which He so often spoke, which Paul and Peter said were, even then, upon us, something they all called “the last days”.


Evidence comes in all sorts of flavors, and miracles have been prophesied to come yet again into a mindset perfectly primed for the miracle chasers who, void of Knowing-Person, fall for the be-dazzle-miracles of False-Hopes.


It is possible to Know-Person in a way or degree where these eventual False-Hopes dazzling the world out there simply have no Truth to give in here in the midst of our painful drought of paucity we share with poor Pastor Timothy and his “wimpy” Apostle Paul.


This is the kind of stuff prophecy tells us about miracles. It is a dangerous thing to have a one-verse theology, or to ignore context, which is the approach the miracle chasers have.



There is something which transcends the miraculous and it is found over in the arena of Personhood and of Love. Those who fall for the dazzling miracles of False-Hopes may end up with neither the body intact nor the soul intact nor the spirit intact. Fortunately, it need not be this way for the Living-Hope that just is the God Who is Love-Himself promises us that we need not ultimately choose between body and soul for He loves us through and through and values our body just as He does our Soul and our Mind and our Spirit and promises to heal all these components through and through. He knows all our physical and spiritual pains, He knows all our physical and spiritual loses, and He cares.


For our miracle chasers we must redirect all that heat, all that emotion, all that passion to Knowing-Person. And that is easy to do for all we need ask is this: If a paralytic is healed, or if the blind see, prove to us it was not some sort of alien from “out there” doing the medical miracle.


The miracle chaser cannot attest as to who is doing “it”, for they know only “it” and no more, no Person. The “it”, void of the “who” becomes a paradox, and thus prophecy tells us that the “it” may actually, will actually, mislead. Now, any “evidence” which is prophesied to one day mislead ought to give us pause if we are banking our entire theological certainty on such “evidence” being present or absent. It is the “who” which gives us immunity to such misleading.

What shall we say to our miracle chaser? Well, it gets worse. If the Living God you think you Know one-on-one gives you just no healing at all, and some god-a or god-b out there be-dazzles you with amazing medical miracle, how is it possible for you to be immune to a False-Hope if in fact the Living God is the God you know (think you know)? How will you know which way to go?
Could we actually ever Know-God in a way which makes us immune to such be-dazzle power-packed stuff? Ever? Well, Scripture says such a thing is possible. Reason, Logic, and Love tell us this too.


Miracles have weight although not the sort we tend to think. There are things which transcend the body.


Once I tasted of my Beloved, -twas over for my soul! Though she should turn her back to me forever, though she should be forever silent, such actions on her part would make me but burn all the more for her, for I have tasted of her love! OH! That love! -Twill be her and no other!

Typo correction:

Should have read as:

The folks who chase after nothing more than miracles, rather than Knowing-Person, will be, eventually, granted what they thirst for (be-dazzle sort of stuff!) and, because they do not Know-Person, they won’t be able to recognize the interior content (the who within the miracle rather than the it of just the event itself) within and behind the miracle they see before their eyes.


Now, when we see this begin to happen before their eyes, we will be seeing Jesus’ own prophecy fulfilled right before our eyes.

The comments to this entry are closed.