I understand your point Pat. You said it understandable enough.

Brad


on 12:24 PM 5/6/2005, Pat Ferguson said:
Hi Brad,

Some very good thoughts there.

I don't think that God made us blind, or even caused our blindness, for
that matter. I guess that he uses our blindness to glorify him. i'm not
sure I'm saying that right, either. Oh well, it's Friday. lol.

I like what you said about having faith. I do believing in healing, but it
has it's time and place, and like you said, he doesn't always give us
everything we want, and that's okay with me.

I will go now and write more when my  brain is working better. lol.

I like what you said about Peter, Paul and Mary. lol.

God Bless.

Love,
Pat Ferguson

At 09:19 PM 5/5/05, you wrote:
 >Reading the devotion Kathy posted, and the  various responses.  I
wondered
 >what do we know about affliction?  No offense to anyone, these are just
 >observations that came to me again through passed studies and meditating
 >on them. On one hand we say that God, regarding one certain
 >affliction,  wants us this way and not to be healed, and on another hand
 >holds yet another affliction, that we not ought have to live this
 >way.  Are we selectively picking out afflictions for our own purposeful
 >reason as to why they exist? Blindness is of god, and depression of the
 >devil? Is not affliction simply affliction? Jesus healed those thrashing
 >about in seizures, those blind, those with leprosy, those with lameness,
 >deformed arms, bent over woman, woman with  a blood issue, not to
mention
 >raised a few from the dead as well. Peter, Paul, and OK Mary, since that
 >is the trio you old timers were thinking anyway *smile*, Well Peter and
 >Paul anyway and not Mary, followed suit in such healing. So what about
 >affliction. Can we separate depression from blindness, from lameness,
from
 >blood disease, from cancer, from heart disease, from high blood pressure
 >from acid reflux for that matter? Is God the maker and cause of them
all?
 >Is the devil the cause of them all? Can we selectively choose who we
feel
 >is the cause of them based upon our own particular situation or theology
 >which we've adjusted to accommodate the tragedy? Can we choose to
believe
 >one affliction is of God and meant to be with us because we see no other
 >way of rationalizing its eminant lack of healing? And can we see in yet
 >another affliction, a potential cure or way out and so blame that one on
 >the devil with reasonably reassurance it will be overcome through modern
 >medicine. In short, hopeless cure equals God wants me this way, and
 >reasonable to good chance a cure will be on  its way, so we safely
 >proclaim victory over the devil's work. If  a man of God walked up to me
 >and healed me of my blindness, can I say then that god made me blind for
 >his glory, or do I say it is of God's glory I was healed. Do I read
 >scripture in the old testament which says that blind, deaf, and
afflicted,
 >god made them all, and believe that to mean he made me blind, or simply
 >that he made me, and my blindness is of  another cause. Over the years
 >I've seen folks, particularly in the blind community I guess because I'm
 >part of it, that folks tend to  start off with a faith that God can,
will
 >and is able to heal them, but cannot reason it out of "why", "why
doesn't
 >God do it then". And so make assumption that he wants us this way.
 >Similarly to the depressed pastor in the article. I agree David had his
 >moments of great depression, but just as much he had tremendous strength
 >leadership and boldness. I'm not certain I'd want to follow a pastor who
 >struggles to get up and lead his flock much less feed himself or go on
 >with a normal day, and then to believe it takes more faith to endure it
 >than be healed of it.  I do agree in one sense that it takes more faith
to
 >endure, that is true but that too does not equate a reason to cuddle the
 >thoght God wants him this way. It takes more faith to endure the
 >affliction than to give up to it and follow it's path of least
resistance.
 >In this case, this pastor would  lessen his faith and succumb to laying
 >around in bed, show up unkempt where ever he goes, and perhaps even take
 >his own life. That is no life of leisure and quite miserable, yet takes
no
 >faith. It does take faith to endure it, try to over come it, and in the
 >case of the pastor, indeed there are ways to overcome it which I hope he
 >does find. Relating to blindness how is this different? Do we not find
it
 >easier to succumb to the affliction as we see it remain in our lives and
 >give up on seeking god's healing hand, and fall into the comfort zone of
 >stating God wants me this way to use me? Sure God can use us where ever
we
 >are, but he certainly don't need me to be blind to minister to the
blind,
 >or sighted for that matter. It does however take tremendous faith to
stand
 >in faith that perhaps it is not necessarily our faith that is preventing
 >us from being healed, but perhaps our lining up with god's will in our
 >life? In James I believe it says that some will not get what they've
asked
 >for because they will use it for ways which are not of God's will or
word.
 >Is it possible that we yes, need to have faith to be healed, for without
 >it we cannot be saved, why should we think differently of healing, and
 >that perhaps we too need to continue to shout to god from the streets
and
 >seek to line up our lives towards his will and out of our persitence and
 >obedicne to his word, he might one day in fact heal us. Now I will say
 >that does not constitute the opposite, making healing our God and not
God
 >our god, that is not balance either. But what of it? Is our afflictions
 >here on Earth of God? Of the devil? Or up to us to selectively plant
 >responsibility on one or the other based upon how we wish to interpret
it
 >or have it fit our theology enough that we can reasonably find our way
 >through life.
 >
 >Brad