Interbane, An interesting and informing question.

In fact I believe it might have been before video cameras but even if it wasn't Jim would not have used one, or a still camera, to document the official's predicament for a number of reasons;

1) Americans were watched as it was, carrying a camera would only serve to call more unwanted attention to him if it wasn't illegal to have one and film in the country. It probably would have been confiscated at customs.

2) It would be totally STUPID as well as useless to have a video or any other camera. One did not take pictures of church meetings or members as such pictures could result in arrest and long jail sentences if they fell into the hands of the government.

3) If the official had been documented on film and those pictures were compromised the consequences would be severe.

4) Finances for missionaries are very limited. Money for cameras would be spent instead for medicine, clothes, shoes, glasses, Bibles, or hundreds of other needed items to take with him.

5) The Christians he visited were very poor. They would had starved if they spent money on cameras.


As odd as it may seem Jim isn't interested in proving his story, as if a video or photographs would be accepted as proof. I submit that Interbane would not accept either as proof. When he told me the story he was telling it believing it happened only because he saw it.

Jim is a man of integrity. He is a strong Christian who has sacrificed for his work. He no longer visits China. His last visit ended prematurely and abruptly as he was spirited out when the local Christians got word that the police were on their way, at that very moment, to the meeting to arrest him.

He made many friends in China. Friends he cannot visit or contact lest they be put in danger.


You may believe the story or not at your own risk.

at your own risk.

indeed

Stahrwe wrote:As odd as it may seem Jim isn't interested in proving his story, as if a video or photographs would be accepted as proof. I submit that Interbane would not accept either as proof. When he told me the story he was telling it believing it happened only because he saw it.

Jim is a man of integrity. He is a strong Christian who has sacrificed for his work. He no longer visits China. His last visit ended prematurely and abruptly as he was spirited out when the local Christians got word that the police were on their way, at that very moment, to the meeting to arrest him.

He made many friends in China. Friends he cannot visit or contact lest they be put in danger.


You may believe the story or not at your own risk.

I don't believe the story.

There is a great deal that doesn't mesh with how I know the world works. I know that people simply don't pause for extended periods of time, especially when it is contrary to the person's motive. It simply doesn't happen. You would first have to convince me this story happened before I'd even begin to hypothesize about medical conditions or any other potential explanation.

That doesn't mean I think it's impossible. It simply means I need more than a second hand anecdote on an internet forum to believe. A second hand anecdote on a forum is not even close to proof. Alone, it doesn't even count as evidence. It's an initial claim, from my point of view, and isn't enough to convince me I even need to seek evidence. Speaking of proof is jumping a dozen steps ahead.

ant wrote:The last post was strictly for the purpose of ridicule.

It's trolling.

no ant, it was simply to point out the inherent flaw in saying the Lord froze those guys to protect His missionaries whilst not even thinking how you would explain the many christians He did absolutely nothing to protect from rape, torture, execution etc etc

sheesh i thought it was obvious the point i was trying to make but perhaps it was a little too subtle for you.

if i was trolling anyone it would be the Lord, but strangely He doesn't seem to mind, it's people like you that get all bent out of shape on your self righteous horse.

Of course you can't believe it.

Of course you can't believe it.

I'm not saying I can't. I don't. Why would I? You tell a story on a forum that's a second hand anecdote that contains unbelievable events. Stahrwe, what do you expect?

Stahrwe's retold story from Jim posits a God who intervened to protect Christian missionaries in China.

Ok so now we have to consider what we think of a God who lets birds crap on an official but does absolutely nothing to stop countless children being sexually abused by His very own priests, does nothing to stop countless atrocities which were I to make you watch the videos would sicken you, disgust you beyond belief.

Do not expect me not to express doubt as to the decency of this so called God.

It seems to me this version of God is the horrible figment of a mind that refuses to think let alone grow up.

If this god exists he deserves to die.

Interbane, I knew you COULD NOT believe it because you are right - That is NOT how the world works. It defies Sagan's Chapter 2.

The thing is, Sagan is pontificating. His Chapter 2 is a repetitious statement of his opinion. It is his philosophy. My story was a statement of events which I represent as being a true account of something told to me by an eyewitness to said events. It is not my opinion or my philosophy. I did NOT say it was a miracle or that God did it. All I asked was for an explanation in the context of Chapter 2. It cannot he explained in said context so it must be denied.

• Evidently the police as well as friends, family, and co-workers of that Chinese official didn't care much about him, to leave him standing frozen on a street corner for more than 24 hours?
• If they had taken the official to a hospital we might have a good explanation for what happened to him.
• What was the official's name? Has anyone ever asked him about that incident?

He no longer visits China. His last visit ended prematurely and abruptly as he was spirited out when the local Christians got word that the police were on their way, at that very moment, to the meeting to arrest him.

• How do you explain that, did the paralytic power of prayer perish?
• I vaguely recall hearing a story in church a looong time ago about local missionaries who went to Africa and were walking around during a torrential downpour. Everyone and everything around was totally drenched except for the two missionaries who remained bone dry even though they didn't use umbrellas. How do you explain that?
• Does evidence of this quality trump science? That's part of what the book is about.

ant wrote:

What kind if society could we create if, instead, we drummed into them science and a sense of hope?

- Sagan, C
Not trying to be the pessimist here, but we would probably have a very similar society as we have today. If society suddenly valued science above any other human construct, it does not follow that the "hope" Sagan wishes for humanity would immediately follow.

I think you're missing the point. Carl is not claiming one follows the other: "what if we drummed into them science AND a sense of hope?" You have to teach both. It's as if Sagan said we should teach bricklaying and art history to all students, then you respond by saying "Sounds great, but teaching bricklaying doesn't mean they'll learn art history." Science certainly can inspire wonder and hope, especially these aspects are taught. Even then hope and wonder are not for everyone; what was that insignificance machine in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?