Ok I cannot and I won't comment on other religions, since I know absolutely nothing about them.

But I will share this 1 miracle with you, out of the few that I have personally witnessed that was done in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Has anyone who suffered a semi or partial stroke without any medical intervention whatsoever, make a complete and full recovery within 7 days ?

Well my father-in-law has and we praise Almighty God for it. Being a miser, we were up in arms with him and with his stubbornness, the only option left for us was to pray like mad. Really mad.

I am not good at statistics so I don't know how that works out but someone experiencing constant dizzynees, droopy face and loss of arm and feet sensations on the left side of his body simultaneously overnight and to recover within days without any medical intervention except for God, what's the probability again cause when I raise this up to the doctors I meet, they say it's impossible !

So the Scriptures is true

"What is impossible for man is possible for God." ~ Jesus Christ

Actually no, for most of us "statistic" is a simple word. Gee, it's not 0.01%? It changes nothing from what I said. Ofcourse you are the expert who likes counting ants in the room while totally ignoring the elephant.

I can make it simpler. There are many such miracles attributed to others as there are to Jesus, here's the thing: No one can actually confirm or observe medical miracles such as curing heart-attacks, cancers or things that can't be seen and there can be other possible explanations but one thing all the miracles can't claim, which can be asserted visually. For example: Do yo know of anyone who can perform a miracle that grows back a limb, a hand or a leg of those who are handicapped or crippled? Now that would be a real miracle but none of them can do that but all of them can only claim to have performed miracles that cannot be verified.

The Hindu con-man Sai Baba has brought back people who are dead (like Jesus) and has performed a lot more "miracles" than Jesus Christ and he only died recently. Why don't you attribute divinity on him like you do to Jesus Christ? Afterall he had performed more miracles? So Sai Baba is more true according to your own calculations.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 19 2018, 03:22 PM

Hold on, earlier you said 0.001%, now you're saying 0.01%?

Okay, nvm then.

Was there 15 ants, was there 16? 17? 18? Watch out for the elephant!!!

It's incredible how you took the effort to calculate the exact percentage yet managed to miss the whole point.

Okay, nvm then.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 19 2018, 03:19 PM

Where was it proven that Lourdes was a fraud?

Response to the Problem of Evil and Suffering
Evil and suffering is clearly seen in the world today and deeply affects all people. Whether it be natural disasters, war or increasing ailment ,suffering affects us all. The existence of evil and suffering also provides a strong challenge for the classical theist, in trying to reconcile the existence of an all good God with the natural disasters that cause suffering to humans and the atrocities humans cause to each other.image

The question of evil and suffering in the world is both painful and mysterious. Some theists struggle with the question “if God is omnipotent and provident, why then does evil exist?”[1] And also with the related question “why does God permit evil?”[2] A theist by definition is one who believes in the existence of a god or gods[3] and “evil can be defined as that which opposes, or is the antithesis of, what is good”[4]

Only some theists have a problem with the question of evil and suffering. The argument, which is first put forward by Epicurus, goes as follows:

God is all powerful(omnipotent), and all good (Omni benevolent)
Evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God
Evil and suffering exist
Therefore God does not exist.
This argument is of the form of modus tollens or indirect reasoning, where p (God is Omni benevolent and omnipotent) implies q (Evil and suffering are compatible with the existence of God). If q is not true (Evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God) then p is not true either (God does not exist).

The reason certain theists do not have this problem is because they reject all of or certain parts of the first premise, such as saying that God is limited (process theology), not omnipotent and/or omniscient (all knowing), or by saying that there is one God who is good and there is another who is evil and the evil god accounts for the evil in the world, these two supreme beings are locked in cosmic dualism, this can be seen in the religion of Zoroastrianism. Also in relation to the first premise would be that God is all knowing (omniscient) and exists everywhere (omnipresent)

However the God of classical theism (Christianity. Judaism, Islam) is true to the first premise. It is only this branch of theism that the problem of the existence of evil concerns. A theodicy is a defence of God’s goodness and omnipotence in the face of evil. Most theodicies would aim to disprove the second premise, which is that evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of God. Such theodicies were developed by St. Irenaeus, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas; another major theodicy is the Free Will Defence.

There are two different kinds of evil and they must be clearly separated, they are natural (or physical) evil and moral evil.

Natural evil is clearly represented by such events as natural disasters (earthquakes, cyclones, tsunamis, etc.), sickness (which is not due to moral evil) and psychological ills, sorrow and anxiety. These are not intrinsically (in and of themselves) evil in fact, one could argue they are not evil at all, as they are only following natural laws. What is generally considered evil about such atrocities is the suffering that such events produce and as far as human welfare is concerned, evil “is what ought not to exist”[5]

Moral evil is well defined in the 1909 Catholic encyclopedia as “the deviation of human volition [will] from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation”[6].Here we can see that for the problem of evil (moral evil) to exist another condition is in place, and that is the view that God is the supreme law giver, and that He has implanted a moral order within the hearts of all men (Natural Law[7]). This view of God as supreme law giver is also common among the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Some examples of moral evil are: murder, theft, torture, rape, property destruction, etc.

Suffering and evil are very much interrelated, as Pope John Paul II said in his apostolic letter on the Christian meaning of human suffering “man suffers whenever he experiences any kind of evil”[8]

Certain explanations for evil and suffering in the Scriptures are Divine punishment for sin, tests of faith, Divine warnings, and Divine discipline and as a means of expiation or atonement for sin. In the New Testament suffering takes on a redemptive value with Christ’s suffering and death on the cross.

St. Augustine (354-430 AD) would argue that the fall of Adam and Eve initiated natural evil, this argument is supported by the account in Genesis where God says to Eve “I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children”[9] and He says to Adam “cursed is the earth in thy work: with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee.”[10] This particular account would suggest that at least some natural evil is Divine punishment for sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas would argue that at least certain natural evils are not in fact evil as when God created the world He “saw that it was good.”[11] However, “God is in no way, directly or indirectly the cause of moral evil”[12] this view is supported by the Sacred Scriptures which state “Almighty God does not do evil”[13] “Free creatures, both human and angelic, are the source of much evil.”[14]

God permits evil, however because he respects the free will of His creation; this is one of the central tenets of the Free Will Defence (FWD). For genuine free will people must choose to follow their ultimate purpose, to live in eternal harmony and rest with God or to disobey God and His commands. This however is not an easy task, especially due to the original sin of Adam and Eve. Peter Vardy puts it this way “the reward for responding to God will be the opposition, persecution, rejection and suffering- but also, if the path is truly followed to the end, a peace and a joy that can be found nowhere else”[15].

St Irenaeus (130-202 AD) held that evil serves a purpose, and that evil is a result of human free will. John Hick, in recent years has contributed to St. Irenaeus’ theodicy. Much of this argument goes back to original sin, where Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of God, however, they strayed away from His likeness when, they disobeyed His commands. St. Irenaeus says:

“For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil.”[16]

Here he makes the point that after the fall, when man received the knowledge of good and evil, that there is a need to return back to the likeness of God after initially being created in His likeness. St. Irenaeus’ theodicy (also known as the soul building defence) is based around the fact that suffering has a redemptive purpose, and after original sin, suffering is needed to attain eternal life as “nothing that is impure will enter the city[Heaven]”[17]

Father William Most explains this well by saying that “Suffering is needed to help us rise above the weakness that is found in our nature as a result of original sin.”[18]

It must be understood that God’s ways are inconceivable to man as St. Paul writes “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!”[19] and that God uses evil for good as St. Augustine said “For almighty God, because he is supremely good, would never allow evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself”[20] This explanation is supported by the Scriptures and the life of Joseph in the Old Testament :“You thought evil against me: but God turned it into good, that he might exalt me, as at present you see, and might save many people.”[21] Also in light of this understanding we can see that suffering is also necessary to help facilitate spiritual growth.

Some may say that this explanation while being intellectually sound does not do justice to human experience, St. Faustina writes in her diaries “Oh, if only the suffering soul knew how it is loved by God, it would die of happiness! Some day, we will know the value of suffering, but then we will no longer be able to suffer. The present moment is ours”[22]

Overall, evil and suffering provide a challenge for classical theists, as to reconcile God’s existence with the existence of evil. The major theodicies are that of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Irenaeus and the Free Will Defence. Each result in the conclusion that God does not do moral evil, however permits moral evil because He respects our genuine free will to obey or disobey His commands. God also allows natural evil for many reasons and these can be seen in the scriptures. However, God’s omnipotence rules supreme as to bring good even out of the evil. “And we know that to them that love God all things work together unto good: to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.”[23]

[1] Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 57

[2] Ibid. 58

[3] WordNet Search-3.0 <http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theist>

[4] New Catholic Encyclopedia 2nd Edition, Thomson Gale, 2003, vol.5 p.487

[5] Sharpe, Alfred. “Evil”. The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol.5. New York: Robert Appleton Company,

1909. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm>[Viewed on August 11 2009]

[6] Id

[7] This is also supported by the Sacred Scriptures, as Romans 2:15 says “What the law requires is

written on their hearts”.

[8] Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris § 7,1984

[9] Genesis 3:16- Douay-Rheims Version 1899 (DRV)

[10] Genesis 3:17-18 (DRV)

[11] Genesis 1:10 (DRV)image

[12] Catechism of the Catholic Church §312 (With reference to St. Augustine De libero arbitrio and St.

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae I-II,79,1.)

[13] Job 34:12 (Good News Bible [GNB])

[14] New Catholic Encyclopedia Loc. cit.

[15] Peter Vardy The Puzzle of Evil, Harper Collins, 1997 (p.199)

[16] St. Irenaeus Against Heresies, IV.38 <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103438.htm>.

[17] Revelation 31:27 (GNB)

[18] Fr. William Most Suffering <http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SFRING.TXT>

[19] Romans 11:33 (DRV)

[20] Catechism of Catholic Church §311 (Quoting St. Augustine, Enchiridion 3,11)

[21] Genesis 50:20 (DRV)

[22] The Diary of St. Faustina- Divine Mercy in my soul 963

[23] Romans 8:28 (DRV)

Is Epicurus Neither Able nor Willing to Understand Evil and the Mercy of God? Then Why Give Him the Time of Day?
October 12, 2017 Rob Slane

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Thus spake Epicurus, the Greek philosopher who lived from 341-270 BC. The riddle is undoubtedly a clever one, and yet it turns out to be loaded with a couple of erroneous presuppositions: firstly, a flawed presupposition, and secondly, a really flawed presupposition.

So what is the flawed presupposition? In a nutshell, it is the idea that to deal with evil, God must do so in exactly the way we think he ought to, and if he doesn’t, we’re going to get all uppity and tell him that he doesn’t exist. In our wisdom, we know that he ought to deal with evil, and we also know just how he ought to do it. Yet the problem we have is that any of the ways we can come up with to deal with evil end up destroying not just evil, but humanity itself. Let me explain.

Take the simplest example of the kind of evil that Epicurus might have envisaged: Cain and Abel. “Okay,” says Epicurus, “so if God is good, willing and omnipotent, why did he allow Cain to kill his brother?” Now how could God have prevented it? There are only really three options: he could have simply prevented Cain from doing it either by natural or miraculous means; he could have destroyed Cain either before or after he did his deed; or he could have “reprogrammed” Cain so that he never again had such a thought in his head.

But with each of these “solutions” there is an insurmountable difficulty. The problem with the first option – preventing Cain doing the deed – is that Cain’s heart remains unchanged, and he will simply look for another opportunity to carry out his crime. The problem with the second – destroying Cain – is that not only must Cain be destroyed but Abel too, because he is also a guilty sinner before God. And the problem with the third – reprogramming Cain – is that Cain loses one of the characteristics that make him to differ from the beasts.

With the first option, sin is harboured within Cain’s heart to be brought out into the open on another day. With the second, all humanity is wiped off the face of the earth, because all – not just the Cains and the Hitlers of this world – are guilty before God. And with the third, Cain is no longer made in the image of God. None of these options deals with evil in a satisfactory way, and if God were to choose any of them, humanity dies.

Now in his riddle, Epicurus castigates God for not doing something about Cain, but for choosing another option instead, which was “do nothing.” Here is exactly where the presupposition is flawed. Epicurus assumes that God must deal with Cain in one of the first three ways, and if he doesn’t, this is evidence of his inability, unwillingness or malevolence. Yet God does choose another way, but rather than it being “do nothing”, it is something that not only deals with the evil, but which does so in a way that overcomes all the other problems as well.

So how can this be done? Well God’s method, which may well sound like foolishness to the likes of Epicurus, is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the only method which not only deals with the problem of evil, but does so at the same time as overcoming the three problems mentioned above. It deals with evil by God taking evil upon himself. It deals with the heart problem by drawing men to God through the Cross, changing their hearts and bringing them into a right relationship with God. It deals with the problem of destroying humanity by offering hope of salvation to sinful humanity. And it deals with the reprogramming problem by restoring men to righteousness, so that they learn to choose the good and forsake evil. Whether Epicurus can accept the “folly” of this method is another matter entirely.

So much for the flawed presupposition, what of the really flawed presupposition? Well if Epicurus happened to be around today, the one question I would want to put to him would be this: “Mr Epicurus, your famous riddle about evil and the impotence of God has wowed many an atheist with its cleverness, and no doubt stumped many a Christian with its difficulties, but what I am really keen to know is this: what do you actually mean by evil.”

At this point it wouldn’t come as a surprise to see Epicurus’ face contorting in barely concealed contempt, implying that I am some sort of a dimwit for not knowing what evil is. Have I never heard of murders and wars and rapes and thefts and that sort of thing? Well yes I have, but contorted faces notwithstanding, that still doesn’t answer my question: what do you mean by evil? Is it just a bunch of actions such as those you have mentioned, or is it something far deeper than that? What actually is it?

The problem with Epicurus’ riddle is that it never gets around to telling us what this “evil” is that God ought to be stopping, and so it seems a pretty safe bet that Epicurus had in mind a bunch of things “out there”. But since his riddle assumes the existence of God before apparently going on to disprove him it follows that the riddle really ought to allow God to define evil, rather than leaving it to Epicurus to assume that his half-baked definition will suffice.

If God is God, then evil is not defined merely as a bunch of bad actions “out there”, but rather as “anything and everything which is opposite of God.” Now if this is the case, then what this means – amongst many other things – is that Epicurus’ riddle itself falls into the category of evil. I doubt very much whether this possibility actually crossed his mind when he wrote it, but if evil is defined by God as being that which is opposite to him, then Epicurus is guilty of that very thing in even proposing his conundrum. In which case, his only legitimate questions would be these: why doesn’t God come and strike me down for even daring to state such a thing? Why doesn’t he come and deal with my evil?

The answer, once again, is the mercy of God. Epicurus had an evil heart, just like the rest of us. He was opposed to God, just like the rest of us are by nature. He calls on God to come and deal with evil, but does he include his own in this? Is he really prepared for God to come and deal with his evil? If he really does desire this, is he prepared for God to leave his heart unchanged, or to strike him dead or to reprogram him? Does he really want God to deal with it in that way? Or will he not rather hope that God can deal with it in such a way that changes his heart for good, leaves him alive, and doesn’t turn him into a machine?

The good news is that this is exactly what God does. It took some thorns, some nails and the death of the Light of the World to achieve it. But it is finished. The grave is empty and the throne is filled. So come, Epicurus, God has found a way to deal with evil and he invites you to join him. Now are you willing to accept?

lol, He's the one who gave a statistic point of 0.001 then later gave a different point of 0.01% (implying he doesn't know), When questioned how he derived at the figure of 0.001...now he twist it and say I'm the one who gave the calculation.

So much for "simple word"....

kesimpulan: he doesn't know yet want to claim the statistic is simple word and change subject to ants and elephant. lol ha ha ha

*next time when you make a statistical claim, make sure you can back it up. if cannot, don't use the word statistic. Pordah.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Jul 19 2018, 04:13 PM

Wah lau...you all here are so hardcore... you all follow Jesuit order kah ?

Read or watch Richard Dawkins on youtube - The God Delusion. He explains why it is a fraud.

I admit the percentages are a bit off but that is not as worse than you. Trying to find minor errors while ignoring the bigger point. Then based on that pretend how correct and "clever" you are.....What a bigot!

Kesimpulan: I have to also admit that you are someone who can never admit when you are wrong and you remain as ignorant and arrogant as ever. That is normal for someone who is delusional and as fundamentalist as you are.

Next time have some manners to tag me when you are responding to me so that I can atleast respond to your nonsense instead of you responding without tagging me so I can't respond back to you and being the cowherd you are.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 19 2018, 04:40 PM

So much of rubbish I don't even know where to start and you still haven't addressed the question. All you have done is twist and spin it into some meaningless gibberish. You managed to spin every part of the riddle out of context then went on to answer it making the whole exercise meaningless. You want to answer it, answer it as it is instead of changing it's context or adding your own jazz and spice into it so that you can answer it or....

Why don't you announce to the whole world that you have finally managed to solve the 2000+ year old Epicurus riddle that no one could? I dare you to or stop make a laughing stock out of yourself.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 19 2018, 04:39 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

and...............?

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2015/0...at-lourdes.html

Faking It At Lourdes


Bernadette Soubirous
Source: Wikipedia
Continuing my series on the fake miracles used by the Catholic Church to keep the faithful faithful and keep the money flowing in, this one deals with the carefully concocted fraud at Lourdes, France.

This fake is, like the Fatima fake, based on the fantasies of an illiterate peasant girl, Bernadette Soubirous, from a remote village who, as with Lúcia Santos at Fatima, seems to have been trying to impress a couple of friends and who found herself locked into her own childish fantasies by a Church keen to exploit her.

There are three elements to the Lourdes 'miracle':
The 'visions' of 14 year-old Bernadette Soubirous.
The 'miracle' cures which come from drinking the spring water and praying at the grotto.
The 'incorruptibility' of Bernadette Soubirous' dead body.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 19 2018, 04:45 PM

https://www.basicincome.com/bp/itmayseemtough.htm

Oh you are asking for that kind of miracle. There was one actually some 30 years ago.

A Down syndrome baby was found in the dumpster nearby an orphanage and the baby girl was discovered by 2 orphans while putting the garbage out.

A Catholic priest ordered for the baby girl to be brought in. When they saw the little child 👶, they understood why the little baby was dumped. This priest gathered other Catholic priests and they prayed and prayed and prayed.

The baby's faced began to change over a period of time and today she is a beautiful lady and smartest girl this country had ever seen. Scholarships were simply thrown at her feet by foreign governments just to attract her to their country.

This Catholic priest whom guided and taught me has since returned to the Lord.

A Down syndrome baby until to verious governments offering scholarships for her services in exchange. What are the odds of that happening ? Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ.

From the Gospel, there's an account of a blind man who was born blind according to his parents testimony and the blind man could see again after his encounter with Jesus Christ who cured him of his blindness.

I suppose the above 2 will suffice at this juncture.

As for this person you've mentioned Sai Baba, like I've mentioned before I really do not know him. If I do not know him, why should I accord him a divinity status ? I must be even mad to that to someone I do not know, right ?

I am telling you the truth, I only know my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ who is my Teacher and He has taught me everything I know because He's alive.

All the miracles that has happened in His name, will never and can never be explained via science. Now that's a name I am willing to accord divinity with. Period. Since it ain't broken, no point fixing.

Here how's things going to play out.

When the time comes and you're really down in the pits plus all the sciences in world can no longer help you. You can choose to call upon Sai Baba's name or the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I recommend that you try out the earlier option and if that doesn't work that you know what that means. 😊

Thereafter, if you still up for it, you must humbly call upon the Lord Jesus Christ. After the miracle has been done for you, the option again is fully yours to repent or continue on your way. Now that's free will.

By the way, why did you write Sai Baba is a con-man ? Surely you don't expect me to accord a con-artist with divinity, right ?

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jul 19 2018, 04:55 PM

If you got something there that contradicts it is not a fake then state it, I am not going to bother reading all the links you post here that explains nothing.

QUOTE(zamorin @ Oct 6 2017, 09:22 PM)
OK , you being an agnostic, you are the perfect person to be asked this puzzle:
[A] “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
[B] Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
[C] Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
[D] Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

Referring to above question, I can choose [C] because [A], [B] and [D] are obviously wrong. But then the question of whence cometh evil doesn't make sense at all if you don't believe in God. Who gives a person the authority to say his moral is better than the person he accused of committing the "evil deed". By the accused person perspective his "evil deed" is actually a "good deed" for him, or people that is on his side. Like in America the Left believe in Open Border, while the Right believe in Close Border. Which one is evil then? Or Hitler's deed which was beneficial for the german people, but not to the rest of the world. His deed was good from his perspective. Who can say he is evil when all he was doing was for the benefit of his people?

Fact is, if a person doesn't believe in God, then he should not believe there is any such thing as evil. For him nothing is evil.

This post has been edited by Haledoch: Jul 19 2018, 04:55 PM

That's not what I meant, if you attribute divinity by miracles, then either Sai Baba had more miracles attributed to him making him more believable as god or both are conmen - yet you are quick to attribute Sai Baba as a con but not Jesus. That is prejudice.

Sai baba is a conman because he is a conman, his cons can be seen on youtube but just like the Christians who believe in Jesus miracles, Sai Baba devotees too believe in his miracles. Back to square one.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 19 2018, 05:00 PM