Not many psychotics can cure the ill, raise the dead or rise after crucifixion. That is, if you read all and take the NT as factual.
There are around 53 ancient gospels detailing the life of Jesus. Do you accept those as well? Why not?
Would it be reasonable to assume, if there is divine intervention in such things, that they were not part of the KJB for a reason? I certainly would not suppress their availability, and I would be surprised if they haven't been studied by many scholars.
For all we know medical science is a gift. But we digress. I was thinking more about our social/political/ethical condition. Turning on your television might provide a looking glass into the state of affairs.
It would be more reasonable to assume that tales of magic and miracles performed by a Son of God are just as mythical as they are in every other culture. The same standards apply to these gospels as to any other religious text.
The cures you asked about are the results of medical science, not the reputed miracles of Jesus 2000 years ago.
I'm sorry. You did a fly-by on me with this one. The cures i'm referring to involves the corruption of the young.
I think it would be best to leave you with that question, and maybe let you answer it yourself. I don't know that there is a cure. A start would be to do away with the centerpiece in the living room before they are old enough to fixate on it. If possible, find a private school to educate them, or homeschool them yourself. Teach them values that they won't find outside the door.
Evidence based science. I don't accept that a bronze age patriarchy is a good model of society to pass on to the next generation.
So when the Bible mentions talking snakes, how do you look at that honestly? It seems to me that you have to infer that it's fiction.
Well, that's a good sign. Talking snakes don't exist so talking snakes in the Bible are allegorical. What about miracles? Is it plausible for Israelites to cross the Red Sea and for Egyptians to be drowned at the same place the next day? Barely Is it plausible for one boy sharing his lunch to inspire others to share their lunches and feed five thousand? Barely. Is it plausible for the dead to live again if they weren't quite dead in the first place? Barely. So do you believe in a plausible natural explanation or an implausible supernatural one?
I'm not a witness to any miracles in my time (other than that of life itself, as I perceive it). So I can't validate there probability of past or present. I can say that I have had brushes with disaster that should have ended terribly, yet I survived. Dumb luck or providence? BTW: "Allegorical" Yes, I know.
