tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post6326067327394313478..comments2024-03-27T11:13:34.520-05:00Comments on The Dunamis Word: The Miracle Of Life After DeathUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-28666438747524203752010-06-18T17:01:55.321-05:002010-06-18T17:01:55.321-05:00I was going to do a commentary on somethign new as...I was going to do a commentary on somethign new as it pertains to thsi subject, but I went ahead and turned it into a new post. <br /><br /><a href="http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2010/06/miracle-of-healing-vs-skepticism.html" rel="nofollow">The Miracle Of Healing vs. Skepticism</a>District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-68819540796567453912010-05-20T20:39:45.940-05:002010-05-20T20:39:45.940-05:00Brap,
you said:"I'm also curious how the...Brap,<br /><br />you said:<i>"I'm also curious how the Pharaoh's magicians duplicated some of God's miracles in Exodus."</i><br /><br />I think the answer to that is in what the magicians couldn't do. they couldn't reverse a single plague. This was a spiritual contrast of man being unable to rid himself of sin (ie: soul problems and issues) The magicians could add to the problems but they couldn't relive themselves of it...then they had no way to deal with the ultimate problem which was death...<br /><br />The magicians, I'm sure either functioned by slight of hand or by some ancient lost knowledge, either way what they had was inadequate and insufficient before God. <br /><br />There's could have also been an attempt to minimize the acts of God by saying, "anything you can do we can do better!" But it didn't quite work out that way.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-62430655921192393612010-05-20T20:34:41.110-05:002010-05-20T20:34:41.110-05:002
Brap
2- The psychology of the early church and...2<br /><br />Brap<br /><br />2- The psychology of the early church and leaders does not indicate a lie. Liars tell stuff to take advantage of the people to get some gain or something they can use. Leaders in the early church were interested in the people being good citizens, having good families and leaders themselves placed themselves in a servants position. This is inconsistent with a lie or a control mechanism. What benefits could possibly be gained from telling people to be model citizens, love everybody and serve one another?<br /><br />3- Culture. If these people lied and continued the lie they were the worst group of people in their culture and that would be logically inconsistent to what they taught and did. The culture as proven through third party references was more strict in religion and did not allow false worship and myth worship. <br /><br />4- Third party references indicate that the works of Jesus were not in dispute. Some claimed that Jesus was a "wise man", "the Christ", hailed by the followers "as if he were a God". These things indicate that long after he was dead the claims were continuing among those called Christian. <br /><br />5- Lack of conflicting manuscript and literary evidence. one thing is sure, myths don't tend to recite the same story in ever region. the stories change. What we find is that the stories and teaching about Jesus and his works were so consistent from place to place that we can track when and where any deviations were introduced. This allows almost pinpoint accuracy in examining the texts. <br /><br />If it is the fact that miracles are recorded without challenge, variation, or dispute for numerous years, it becomes a very difficult argument to assume that we now know more than the people of antiquity did about certain events themselves. <br /><br />All of that makes a case of reasonable certainty about the miracles of Jesus being more than mere myth.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-31360508883550934222010-05-20T20:33:51.174-05:002010-05-20T20:33:51.174-05:00Brap,
This is the 3rd time I'm trying this. t...Brap,<br /><br />This is the 3rd time I'm trying this. the other two times blogger failed and erased the comment. <br /><br />You said:<i>"So I think what you're saying is when miracles occur, another element or elements are added to the equation."</i><br /><br />Yes sir. Those other elements may or may not be detectable by scientific method but the outcome or result of the element(s) will be. <br /><br />You said:<i>"...but is there any evidence that any of his Biblical miracles actually occurred, other than testimony from an ancient era when people believed in all sorts of supernatural events, miracles, and other gods?"</i><br /><br />With this, I hear you making at least a couple of different points. 1- Questioning the authenticity or accuracy of a writing from antiquity that have what is thought to be "mythical" elements and 2- Questions regarding the accuracy or trustworthiness of the bible in general. <br /><br />Starting with the latter, I'll simply say that there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the biblical narrative. When examining literature as literature the bible meets tests of literary history, archaeology, and other criteria. the bible has proven itself to be otherwise historically accurate and above reproach. The only questionable part is distinguishing the difference between kerygma and myth. <br /><br />I would hold that the "myth" part be examined though. Myths don't develop as the bible did. We can trace the myths that do exist and see them changing over time, adding and deleting certain parts to adapt to what the myth holders were trying to do. This was usually a long process and we KNOW that myths were worked and reworked. <br /><br />We have a bible that was written early as compared to other accepted works of antiquity and that is abundant in the copies and proliferation of those copies. From the very earliest point we see no confusion or insertions over the miracles accounted within it. Miracles were never a subject of dispute. In fact the ultimate miracle of the resurrection was the foundation of the salvation of sceptics such as Paul, Thomas and James. These men certainly had an opportunity (even if they accepted Jesus) to destroy any inaccurate mythological content, but they certainly didn't do so. Why? because the miracles of Jesus were not in question. <br /><br />In order to understand their actions, you must culturalize them. They were steeped in their religion which had severe and strict penalties for adherence to false religions and myths. These things were especially true in the 1st century. <br /><br />So biblical trustworthiness was not a question of antiquity, it is a modern question by those who either misplace or are unaware of certain pieces of the 1st century puzzle.<br /><br />If you're like me, I would then say...OK, let's assume that what they taught is accurate so far as in "that's what they said"...just because they said it doesn't make it so. they could have lied about it. <br /><br />They could have but it's highly unlikely for a number of reasons. <br /><br />1- The skeptics I mentioned had no reason to make life difficult for themselves by perpetuating a "myth". Life would be much easier if they toned down the rhetoric, they didn't and suffered greatly for it. <br /><br />see 2District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-29876668631178630972010-05-19T21:35:09.009-05:002010-05-19T21:35:09.009-05:00You said: "The effects of gravity are overrid...You said: "The effects of gravity are overridden by a different set of laws working in tandem. Gravity is not negated, it is overridden."<br /><br />Ok, I'll give you "overriden" as opposed to "suspended" or "superseded." Lift partially overrides gravity when a plane is ascending, and gravity partially overrides lift when a plane is descending. So I think what you're saying is when miracles occur, another element or elements are added to the equation.<br /><br />You said: "The biblical God is described as active in, with and through his creation and present at all times without competition. This is why we can have the reasonable certainty that miracles come from God."<br /><br />I'll agree that God is described that way in the Bible, but is there any evidence that any of his Biblical miracles actually occurred, other than testimony from an ancient era when people believed in all sorts of supernatural events, miracles, and other gods? I'm also curious how the Pharaoh's magicians duplicated some of God's miracles in Exodus.<br /><br />You said: "He has demonstrated that ability in history through displaying his power and authority over life, death, sickness and disease."<br /><br />How so?Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-10293003578394528202010-05-18T00:34:39.075-05:002010-05-18T00:34:39.075-05:00Brap,
You said:"Where do we draw the line be...Brap,<br /><br />You said:<i>"Where do we draw the line between miracle and non-miracle? Or do we just say the existence of life itself is a miracle, therefore simply sustaining life is a miracle, as is any reviving of a life. To me that kinda weakens the impact of the word "miracle" and the phrase "miracle of life after death.""</i><br /><br />You track back to a minimal facts position but miracles, by definition, are non-normative events. Therefore the awe of life itself, though miraculous and awe inspiring, is ultimately part of a normal process. Now, what is being talked about are events that are considered by most to be non-normative events. For a person that died and has come back to life is a miracle. It is something that isn't a dime a dozen.<br /><br />You said:<i>"Gravity is not suspended or superseded when an airplane flies, it is still very much a part of the equation to determine the total vertical force on the plane. The lift on a plane created by the motion of the wings through the air simply counteracts gravity. When the lift is greater than gravity, the plane is ascending. When the lift is less than gravity, the plane is descending or landed."</i><br /><br />My argument about gravity being superseded stands. You introduce the word "suspend" and I actually like that word better. The Webster 913 definition is:<i> To cause to cease for a time; to hinder from proceeding; to interrupt; to delay; to stay. [1913 Webster]</i> Gravity certainly doesn't cease, but it's effect is certain interrupted. The effects of gravity are overridden by a different set of laws working in tandem. Gravity is not negated, it is overridden. <br /><br />Further and more to the point, miracles temporarily override or "suspend" the effects of what we observe that are natural laws or processes. They never cause natural processes not to exist, but a different set of laws and principles, some measured by other natural laws and some that are inexplicable, suspend those that we deem as a normal part of our existence.<br /><br />Also God simply doesn't wind it up and let it all go. That's basically the deist position. The biblical God is described as active in, with and through his creation and present at all times without competition. This is why we can have the reasonable certainty that miracles come from God. 1- He is the only one that has promised to be concerned enough with our condition to do something about it. 2- He has demonstrated that ability in history through displaying his power and authority over life, death, sickness and disease, 3- nothing else, natural law or any other deity, has extended any promise to us in any of these areas or places to grant us anything resembling a miracle. <br /><br />So when all things are considered it's more reasonable than not to accredit God with miraculous events, and especially those events that better the condition of men and mankind as that is consistent with the nature of Grace and mercy which has been revealed through Jesus.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-76829305378702178722010-05-17T23:26:15.873-05:002010-05-17T23:26:15.873-05:00Paul said: "I have looked up how long the bod...Paul said: "I have looked up how long the body can last withouth oxygen and I have seen no more than 3-6 minutes before brain cells start to die, so 1 minute and all that would not be miraculous."<br /><br />It sounds like you'd be willing to draw the line at six or seven minutes, give or take a reasonable amount. But regardless of where you draw the line, or how wide it is, I believe your position is that this is the line between something the doctors can explain vs. something that is (or likely is) a miracle.<br /><br />My position, however, is that this is the line between something the doctors cannot explain now with the data and knowledge they have vs. something they might be able to explain with additional data (not gathered at the time of the incident) or with additional knowledge the medical profession may gain in the future. Whenever the doctors cannot explain why somebody died, despite appropriate resuscitation efforts, is that considered a miracle (or a tragicle, perhaps)? Medical knowledge advances, and there are medical anomalies, plain and simple. If someone made a list of occurrences the medical profession could not explain 100 years ago and attributed all of them to the supernatural, that list would look utterly ridiculous today based on the current state of medical knowledge, especially if doctors could go back in time and examine the subjects of these supernatural occurrences.<br /><br /><br />Paul said: "If it goes beyond natural the only other thing is for it to be supernatural."<br /><br />That's a very big "if," since the progress of science through history has continuously been able to explain things that were previously thought to be beyond natural. (See my comments on rainbows, weather, etc. earlier in this thread.) We can't know what actually goes beyond natural, we can only know what cannot be explained with today's knowledge of the natural world.<br /><br />It seems like a 3-monkey mindset to jump from "we don't know" to "God did it," because that completely ignores the possibility that we might know later, which is what has clearly happened throughout history.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-71585029181158544402010-05-17T14:16:13.924-05:002010-05-17T14:16:13.924-05:00sorry, didnt finish my sentence.
Thats the "...sorry, didnt finish my sentence.<br /><br />Thats the "natural" way, so if something goes beyond that as with these two individuals, it seems self serving and a 3 monkey mindset like what Pastor said, to say that they were not really dead, etc and then have no answer.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02063500442339359526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-43231530048787192932010-05-17T14:14:01.930-05:002010-05-17T14:14:01.930-05:00Now we cannot want to have it both ways. The laws ...Now we cannot want to have it both ways. The laws of nature and medicine tell us that humans cannot live beyond a specific time and if they do they will have some type of damage.<br /><br />Thats the "natural" way, so if something goes beyond that as with these two individuals, it seems self serving and a 3 monkey mindset like what Pastor said.<br /><br />I have looked up how long the body can last withouth oxygen and I have seen no more than 3-6 minutes before brain cells start to die, so 1 minute and all that would not be miraculous.<br /><br /><br />If it goes beyond natural the only other thing is for it to be supernatural. Whatever name we want to call it, Mr. Hume is way off base.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02063500442339359526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-61098788010068579312010-05-16T23:30:26.835-05:002010-05-16T23:30:26.835-05:00For the sake of argument, let's agree that the...For the sake of argument, let's agree that the two people profiled in this post were clinically dead for some time period. Let's further agree that being clinically dead for 15 minutes, then revived by any means, natural or otherwise, with no apparent brain damage, is a miracle.<br /><br />Is being revived with no apparent brain damage after 14 minutes a miracle? 13? 10? 5? 1 minute? How about after 30 seconds? 10 seconds? 1 second?<br /><br />Where do we draw the line between miracle and non-miracle? Or do we just say the existence of life itself is a miracle, therefore simply sustaining life is a miracle, as is any reviving of a life. To me that kinda weakens the impact of the word "miracle" and the phrase "miracle of life after death."Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-3327386595614700272010-05-16T23:27:34.354-05:002010-05-16T23:27:34.354-05:00You said: "Miracles don't automatically m...You said: "Miracles don't automatically mean that their process is not based on naturalistic premises. Miracles are not "violations" of natural law, they are supersession of natural law. <br /><br />eg: We know the effect of gravity on earth. When a plane flies other law(s) come into effect overriding the law of Gravity. This superseding is based on human understanding of natural law and the premises involved."<br /><br />Gravity is not suspended or superseded when an airplane flies, it is still very much a part of the equation to determine the total vertical force on the plane. The lift on a plane created by the motion of the wings through the air simply counteracts gravity. When the lift is greater than gravity, the plane is ascending. When the lift is less than gravity, the plane is descending or landed.<br /><br />Rather than argue about the definition of a "naturalistic explanation," since the first two definitions of naturalism I looked up online had something about excluding the supernatural, let me rephrase it to this: "an explanation that does not require the suspension or suppression of natural processes."<br /><br /><br />You said: "Technically speaking, If God created the heaven and earth, he DID create the rainbow. Once again he may allow natural process to bring them to pass, but the creation and ownership of it cannot be said to NOT be his. . . . Our development in understanding anything, such as a star, planet, space, does not mean that God didn't start, institute or sustain such things."<br /><br />The Bible gives God a direct role in rainbows, weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc., whereas if God just created everything in the beginning and put in place the natural processes that let them happen, I would consider that an indirect role. In other words, God put things in motion (Big Bang) and then he backed off. My point is that there is no scientific evidence of God having a direct role in rainbows, weather, etc., which means it's reasonable to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible, and it is not logical to assume anything the Bible says about "God did it."<br /><br />Brap said: "Reversing does not have to be done by outside forces. The human body has amazing natural healing powers. When you cut your arm, the cut can heal without anybody doing anything."<br /><br />Harvey said: "Yea, and cut it and let it heal itself and you'll also get gang green if you're not careful. May even have to cut off an appendage."<br /><br />If you don't agree that nothing in your statement about gangrene contradicts my statement about a cut being reversed without outside forces, please substitute the word "bruise" in place of the word "cut." (Let's limit it to a simple bruise with no organ damaged other than the skin.)<br /><br />You said: "What if someone says keep doing it for 5 or 10 days because they have conducted some sort of study and they get a group of another quack-pots to agree...That would be a mess."<br /><br />If the lead medical person on site thinks 5 or 10 days is reasonable to attempt resuscitation, that's the right thing to do. I suspect, however, that other signs of death may start appearing, so hopefully that new data will not be ignored and they can make a new evaluation on how long to attempt resuscitation.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-46610610733859198252010-05-15T22:20:23.377-05:002010-05-15T22:20:23.377-05:00Brap,
You said"Well, some people submit wher...Brap,<br /><br />You said<i>"Well, some people submit whereas others keep searching for naturalistic explanations."</i><br /><br />Miracles don't automatically mean that their process is not based on naturalistic premises. Miracles are not "violations" of natural law, they are supersession of natural law. <br /><br />eg: We know the effect of gravity on earth. When a plane flies other law(s) come into effect overriding the law of Gravity. This superseding is based on human understanding of natural law and the premises involved. If God is God as I know he is, then certainly there is another realm of law and another dimension out of which law that operations in this dimension have come. If God through that dimension supersedes law at times in this dimension then what would reasonably happen??? Miracles by virtue of the name temporary superseding of natural law. <br /><br />The carnal or materialistic mind is held if not bound to naturalism as a premise and as a matter of fact that very premise isn't supportable by the evidence.<br /><br />You said:<i>"He is also described as the creator of rainbows and many other things (weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc.) that have since then been found to have naturalistic explanations. So I don't think it's logical to assume God did anything just because people thought he did 2000 years ago. I think it's more logical to assume there are things we don't know now that we will know later, since that has been true at any point in human history"</i><br /><br />Technically speaking, If God created the heaven and earth, he DID create the rainbow. Once again he may allow natural process to bring then to pass, but the creation and ownership of it cannot be said to NOT be his. <br /><br />So far as volcanoes etc, none of those things are independent of his creation either. Also none of those natural events are inherently evil. Our development in understanding anything, such as a star, planet, space, does not mean that God didn't start, institute or sustain such things. <br /><br />You said:<i>Reversing does not have to be done by outside forces. The human body has amazing natural healing powers. When you cut your arm, the cut can heal without anybody doing anything.</i><br /><br />Yea, and cut it and let it heal itself and you'll also get gang green if you're not careful. May even have to cut off an appendage. The medical professionals did nothing but normal process that was ineffective in reversing the condition. God bless their efforts, but only God gives and sustains life and or allows it to leave the body. There were people in less initial health risk than these men that died under similar good care.<br /><br />In response to how long should resuscitation efforts continue, you said <i>"Until the most knowledgeable person or persons regarding medical procedures on site agrees the resuscitation efforts should stop."</i><br /><br />Well the most knowledgeable have already said that it doesn't take that long. They've already said that brain damage occurs after about 5 minutes also. Certainly no more than 10. What if someone says keep doing it for 5 or 10 days because they have conducted some sort of study and they get a group of another quack-pots to agree...That would be a mess.<br /><br />We'll get at it when you get back.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-12650228865878763252010-05-15T08:29:31.271-05:002010-05-15T08:29:31.271-05:00". . . there are a lot of things that happen ...". . . there are a lot of things that happen that we don't know the cause of but we submit simply because that's the way it is."<br /><br />Well, some people submit whereas others keep searching for naturalistic explanations.<br /><br />"Fact is that biblically, God is described as the the giver and sustainer of life."<br /><br />He is also described as the creator of rainbows and many other things (weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc.) that have since then been found to have naturalistic explanations. So I don't think it's logical to assume God did anything just because people thought he did 2000 years ago. I think it's more logical to assume there are things we don't know now that we will know later, since that has been true at any point in human history.<br /><br />"In addition, the condition was irreversible as the professionals did nothing to reverse the process"<br /><br />Reversing does not have to be done by outside forces. The human body has amazing natural healing powers. When you cut your arm, the cut can heal without anybody doing anything.<br /><br />"How many others did they do the same thing to for the same length of time with no results..."<br /><br />Probably plenty, since every case is unique.<br /><br />"further according to your interpretation (since you're basically saying that they weren't really dead) how long should resuscitation efforts occur...5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 24 hours????"<br /><br />Until the most knowledgeable person or persons regarding medical procedures on site agrees the resuscitation efforts should stop. <br /><br />"Then, when that's settled, what about brain damage? How is brain damage avoided when we already know that oxygen deprivation causes much more extensive damage at much shorter lengths of time???"<br /><br />I don't know, but I suspect a medical professional might have some theories.<br /><br />"It's funny how science is only good when it fits one's worldview is it not? That's certainly the way it seems reading your commentary..."<br /><br />What science have I declared as not good?<br /><br />I won't be able to continue this discussion until I'm back on the internets late Sunday.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-28318214664014701042010-05-14T22:43:42.631-05:002010-05-14T22:43:42.631-05:00It's funny, that the SWOON hypothesis takes ma...It's funny, that the SWOON hypothesis takes many forms..."they weren't really dead". That's a mess.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-52813793967647636042010-05-14T22:37:31.209-05:002010-05-14T22:37:31.209-05:00Brap,
The explanation that God is responsible doe...Brap,<br /><br />The explanation that God is responsible doesn't satisfy man's epistemological needs to know the cause but there are a lot of things that happen that we don't know the cause of but we submit simply because that's the way it is. <br /><br />Fact is that biblically, God is described as the the giver and sustainer of life. He is described as the architect of life. If that's the case in light of what we don't know, it's easier and more logical to begin there than to begin with the unreasonable proposition of discounting God or miraculous intervention simply because you don't have epistemological certainty...That's the 3 monkeys...Denial is mental gymnastics and unwarranted. <br /><br />In addition, the condition was irreversible as the professionals did nothing to reverse the process...How many others did they do the same thing to for the same length of time with no results...further according to your interpretation (since you're basically saying that they weren't really dead) how long should resuscitation efforts occur...5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 24 hours???? <br /><br />Then, when that's settled, what about brain damage? How is brain damage avoided when we already know that oxygen deprivation causes much more extensive damage at much shorter lengths of time???<br /><br />It's funny how science is only good when it fits one's worldview is it not? That's certainly the way it seems reading your commentary...<br /><br />Carry on.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-56111975375751838692010-05-14T21:46:40.432-05:002010-05-14T21:46:40.432-05:00The definition of death continues to change as med...The definition of death continues to change as medical technology advances. For instance, a stopped heart used to be sufficient to declare death, but that obviously is not the case today. Although cessation of electrical activity in the brain is considered reasonable criteria today, even that is being challenged by some people.<br /><br />Death is more of a process than an event, which is why it can be difficult to draw the line. The Uniform Determination of Death Act has the following language:<br /><br />"An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead."<br /><br />If one accepts that definition of death then the gentlemen profiled in this post, as well as all the other people who have had similar experiences (including Don Piper), were not dead, because their cessation of functions was not irreversible. Their stories are no doubt outside the norm in terms of recovery, and medical professionals may have difficulty explaining exactly what happened. It is quite possible that the right monitoring equipment in the right places could have shown how and why their recovery began, or maybe not. We'll never know. But going from "We don't know" to "God did it" just isn't logical.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.com