Re: Delia Knox
- From: Michael J Davis <mjdusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:28:41 +0100
John R <truthseeker55@xxxxxxxxx> was inspired to say
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:22:12 +0100, Kendall Down <kkdown@xxxxxxxxxx>
On 19/09/2010 01:30, John R wrote:
I wont say any more now because if the healing is of God then I have
some MAJOR rethinking to do in respect of how God operates.
Regrettably, many people who witness (or even benefit from) a healing
then go on to give the glory to the human agent instead of to God.
"I attended a meeting run by xxx and was healed, what a wonderful person
xxx must be."
"I prayed to xxx and was healed, so xxx must be a saint."
"I visited xxx and was healed, so xxx must be a holy place."
Of course, any of the above may be true, but they are not necessarily
I agree with you entirely up to this point. And a true "healer" will
give that glory to God.
In the case you refer to, God may have healed someone while the named
individual was praying for the person, but it was the person's faith
rather than the other's prayers that brought about the healing.
Here is where I completely disagree. A person may have faith and
still not be healed. Likewise God may still heal without that faith
I've skipped this thread, partly because I've covered all this stuff before. I agree with your views, John.
- Prev by Date: Re: Papal visit: Cardinal Newman's 'miracle cure'
- Next by Date: Re: Hawking proves there is no God
- Previous by thread: Re: Delia Knox
- Next by thread: Re: Delia Knox