Spirituality
17 Mar 13
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI was healed of a broken ankle many years ago. I had a herniated disc (L5) and someone prayed for me and I felt intense heat where they placed their hand...pain was gone...I have heard of some outrages miracles one happened to the pastor and his wife, driving home in a snow storm. I can't go into details on this forum...
Once a man I knew became outraged at something I did and raised a handgun and pointed it at my face. I could see the veins standing out in his face, sweat dripping off his hair. He pulled back the hammer of the gun. I heard it click loudly. The muscles in his hand and arm were tense, and the barrel of the gun tremored slightly. He stood there for what ...[text shortened]... Plausible deniability, as I said. No, I don't believe that. That man was a monster.
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterJust to be clear.
I was healed of a broken ankle many years ago. I had a herniated disc (L5) and someone prayed for me and I felt intense heat where they placed their hand...pain was gone...I have heard of some outrages miracles one happened to the pastor and his wife, driving home in a snow storm. I can't go into details on this forum...
You were diagnosed by a medical professional as having a broken ankle, and it was healed instantaneously without any medical intervention?
Is that correct?
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterOn the other point.
I was healed of a broken ankle many years ago. I had a herniated disc (L5) and someone prayed for me and I felt intense heat where they placed their hand...pain was gone...I have heard of some outrages miracles one happened to the pastor and his wife, driving home in a snow storm. I can't go into details on this forum...
I had sciatica recently (I think L2), and I was sent to a chiropractor. She placed her hands on me, and I felt a strong sensation of heat there, and the pain was significantly relieved for quite a while.
Not so dissimilar.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by Rank outsidercorrect...1976...don't remember the month, I was a fairly new Christian in my 20's, was supposed to go to another facility for a cast, but went to a believer and was healed...never got the cast.
Just to be clear.
You were diagnosed by a medical professional as having a broken ankle, and it was healed instantaneously without any medical intervention?
Is that correct?
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterRun the timeline by me again if you will.
correct...1976...don't remember the month, I was a fairly new Christian in my 20's, was supposed to go to another facility for a cast, but went to a believer and was healed...never got the cast.
1. You hurt your ankle.
2. You had it x-rayed by a medical professional.
3. The x-ray confirmed a break.
4. You then went to a spiritual healer who fixed your leg.
5. You then went back to a medical professional who confirmed that the break had been healed.
Is that the chronology?
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterI am curious as to whether you continue to go to the believer for all medical treatment or only some kinds of treatment.
correct...1976...don't remember the month, I was a fairly new Christian in my 20's, was supposed to go to another facility for a cast, but went to a believer and was healed...never got the cast.
Would you recommend all Christians use believers for their medical needs?
22 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF"Churchill on Prepositions"
Clinton? "Definition of is"? Hanging chads? "Intransitive verb"? You're grasping after yet another poor post. Let me re-pose the 2 questions you dodged:
Have assertions about you being right and other people wrong - wrapped up in analogies like the one about the camp fire - ever actually worked for you on people you know in real life?
Do analogies like that ...[text shortened]... y need to avoid answering these questions, don't worry. People will make of it what they will.
"The saying attributed to Winston Churchill rejecting the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition must be among the most frequently mutated witticisms ever. I have received many notes from correspondents claiming to know what the “original saying” was, but none of them cites an authoritative source.
The alt.english.usage FAQ states that the story originated with an anecdote in Sir Ernest Gowers’ Plain Words (1948). Supposedly an editor had clumsily rearranged one of Churchill’s sentences to avoid ending it in a preposition, and the Prime Minister, very proud of his style, scribbled this note in reply: “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.” The American Heritage Book of English Usage agrees.
The FAQ goes on to say that the Oxford Companion to the English Language (no edition cited) states that the original was “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.” To me this sounds more likely, and eagerness to avoid the offensive word “bloody” would help to explain the proliferation of variations.
A quick search of the Internet turned up an astonishing number. In this era of copy-and-paste it’s truly unusual to find such rich variety. The narrative context varies too: sometimes the person rebuked by Churchill is a correspondent, a speech editor, a bureaucrat, or an audience member at a speech and sometimes it is a man, sometimes a woman, and sometimes even a young student. Sometimes Churchill writes a note, sometimes he scribbles the note on the corrected manuscript, and often he is said to have spoken the rebuke aloud. The text concerned was variously a book manuscript, a speech, an article, or a government document."
Here is just a sample of the variations circulating on the Net:
That is a rule up with which I will not put.
This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
Not ending a sentence with a preposition is a bit of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put
This is insubordination, up with which I will not put!
This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.
This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put.
Madame, that is a rule up with which I shall not put.
One poor soul, unfamiliar with the word “arrant,” came up with: “That is the sort of errant criticism up with which I will not put.”
Then there are those who get it so scrambled it comes out backward:
Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.
Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which we will not put.
From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.
Please understand that ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put.
"I checked the indexes of a dozen Churchill biographies, but none of them had an entry for “prepositions.” Ben Zimmer has presented evidence on the alt.usage.english list that this story was not originally attributed to Churchill at all, but to an anonymous official in an article in The Strand magazine. Since Churchill often contributed to The Strand, Zimmer argues, it would certainly have identified him if he had been the official in question. It is not clear how the anecdote came to be attributed to Churchill by Gowers, but it seems to havecirculated independently earlier." [FMF :roF~]
.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI knew this would get blown out of proportion. You guys are like the Pharisee's who want every detail so you could rationalize, pick apart, disprove, or in your mind, "there has to be a rational explanation". Well I am not giving anymore details. As I said earlier, though someone were raised from the dead in front of your eyes, you would still not give God the glory due Him, because as Jesus said ..men loved darkness and would not come to the light.....
I am curious as to whether you continue to go to the believer for all medical treatment or only some kinds of treatment.
Would you recommend all Christians use believers for their medical needs?
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterPinpoint Accuracy.
I knew this would get blown out of proportion. You guys are like the Pharisee's who want every detail so you could rationalize, pick apart, disprove, or in your mind, "there has to be a rational explanation". Well I am not giving anymore details. As I said earlier, though someone were raised from the dead in front of your eyes, you would still not give G ...[text shortened]... lory due Him, because as Jesus said ..men loved darkness and would not come to the light.....
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadCome on, if you're going to use the third degree, you need a high-wattage bulb with a giant reflector, maybe some rope to tie him up, perhaps a rubber hose or something that won't leave a mark. Oh, yeah, and some water to splash in his face if he passes out.
I am curious as to whether you continue to go to the believer for all medical treatment or only some kinds of treatment.
Would you recommend all Christians use believers for their medical needs?
Get with the program.
22 Mar 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterWelcome to the Spirituality forum.
I knew this would get blown out of proportion. You guys are like the Pharisee's who want every detail so you could rationalize, pick apart, disprove, or in your mind, "there has to be a rational explanation". Well I am not giving anymore details. As I said earlier, though someone were raised from the dead in front of your eyes, you would still not give G ...[text shortened]... lory due Him, because as Jesus said ..men loved darkness and would not come to the light.....
"Denying God and haranguing Christians since 2003."