1. They both have faith in God.
2. They prayed for children when at an old age.
3. God granted them two children in their old age.
Viagra dealers may be a bit disappointed, as Ramjit claimed, "I didn't take any performance enhancers … I just prayed to go to complete my family, either a boy or a girl," as noted in an interview documented by ABC News.
Raghav had remained a bachelor and practised celibacy throughout his life until he met Shakuntala about 10 years ago.
Genesis 25:19 states, "These are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham; Abraham gave birth to Isaac”. According to scripture, Abraham was 100 years old when he fathered Isaac and Sarah was 90 at the time (Genesis 17:15-21 and Genesis 21:1-3).
Raghav prayed specifically for two sons: "After staying together, we decided to extend our family and aspired for two sons. With God's grace, our wish has been fulfilled," Raghav said.
As far as we know, Ramjit has not been called to travel to a far off land to found a new nation. Ramjit is a teetotaler and strict vegetarian and he considers both his physical health and faith in God to be critical factors in his ability to father a child at such an age.
Talking about his daily routine, Raghav said, "I wake up at five in the morning and go to bed before 8pm. During the day, I work in the fields and also take 1-2 hour afternoon nap." He added his diet includes around two litres of cow's milk, fresh and green vegetables and chapattis.
For a 96-year-old, he doesn't look too bad! Though healthy for his age, Shakuntala appeared to be concerned for the family. "My husband earns a living by working in the fields. Besides, he gets Rs 500 as old age pension from the state government. This is insufficient to feed our children and family. We hope to educate them and do something good in life," she said. His family could use our prayers. The referenced articles do not mention whether or not specifically clarify Raghav is a Christian, but, based on his comments, he seems to have a general faith that God exists. We can pray that he knows the living God of scripture with clarity and accuracy.
Tags: record for oldest dad, oldest father in the world, how old was Sarah when she gave birth to Isaac? How old was Abraham when he gave birth to Isaac?
"...This is insufficient to feed our children and family. We hope to educate them and do something good in life"
ReplyDeleteWouldn t it have been better to think about it BEFORE having a child? It is not like we are dealing we teenagers with raging hormons.
If God can help a 96-year-old to father a child, do you think it might be possible for God to assist in providing food for it as well? With the need expressed, other Christians now have the blessing of seeing God provide as they participate in praying for the family.
ReplyDeleteToo bad he doesn't do that for so many families, even in the first world.
Delete1. I do not believe in god or gods and serious unbiased scientific studies show that the effect of prayer is nil.
ReplyDelete3. Not to mention, that it is unlikely that the old man is a christian and prayed to your god, Rick.
2. An old man having a child is not evidence of the involvement of a "higher being". It is just evidence for the potential of the human body or the involvement of some younger neighbor.
Anonymous, don't you know that any mention of "God" or use of that term is reference to the Christian deity, even though Muslims, Jews and (as far as I'm aware) Sikhs use the same term when referring to their deity. I'd imagine that Ba'Hai do the same, as would Zoroastrians. Then we have Rastafarians as well.
DeleteI think we could also lump Deists and pantheists as well. Not to mention pagan's whose concept of the all powerful God was Zeus/Jupiter.
Apparently the actual beliefs don't matter, all that matters is that you use the non-descriptive term "God".
Birth records are likely to be scanty, so the claim of him ebeing 96 could be mistaken.
ReplyDeleteWe should also ask for fertility tests on both of them before claiming a "miracle", since it is possible that they're both still fertile.
Once again Rick, it looks like you're leaping to unwarranted conclusions because it "feels good" to do so - par for the course really.
The commenter Havok has been unable to challenge philosophical articles underscoring the truth of God's existence. It is perhaps easier for him to try and 'raise Havok' by making truth claims at posts that have nothing to do with philosophical arguments.
ReplyDeleteBeginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution. This seemed to work well with a commenter named Havok who repeatedly claimed that I either ignored cogent comments or made "illogical" replies to comments in my article "How Identity Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence." When asked to provide one such example, he repeatedly ignored the request and eventually stopped posting at my blog. Well, after his long hiatus, it seems Havok is back and as misguided as ever.
It is atheist apostles, not theists, who seem to be basing their beliefs ultimately on feelings these days. PZ Myers, for example, has declared that the question of right and wrong, the question of human morality, is based on feelings of empathy.
It's right there in an interview with PZ Myers, the Pharyngula founder, At approximately the 6.20 mark in the interview, PZ offers that empathy is the basis of moral decisions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgW9vJ4QyFw
Do you think Havok enjoys the feeling of being wrong? Perhaps its a sadomasochistic thing. It seems he just can't get enough.
Rick, if you're unable to provide any substance then don't make claims.
DeleteAll of the claims you make in your ridiculous "I'm not answering Havok because he's a big meanie" comments have been addressed, and were addressed when you first started ignoring me.
The "unsubstantiated slander" was substantiated on the threads which were relevant.
Replying with a childish "I'm ignoring you" comment is not actually ignoring me.
And I am still waiting for those replies on your "How identity, logic and physics prove God's existence" thread. I've been waiting for those replies for quite some time. Prior to you deciding to ignore me.
Now, I know that you dislike having untrue things said about you, but your stance here is inconsistent. I have informed you of all of this before, yet you continue to claim things which are false. Since you are claiming things to be false which you have been informed are false, and have not actually addressed the fact that they are false, I conclude (once again) that you are lying.
Once again you are lying Rick. You've been caught out lying repeatedly on your own blog, and yet you still want to think of yourself as some sort of paragon of virtue, defending what is "Right" and "Good". You're a liar for Jesus.
Rick: It is atheist apostles, not theists, who seem to be basing their beliefs ultimately on feelings these days. PZ Myers, for example, has declared that the question of right and wrong, the question of human morality, is based on feelings of empathy.
DeleteThis is quite simply wrong Rick, and you ought to understand it.
Meyers seems to be claiming that morality and moral decision making, this is not PZ relying upon emotions for his beliefs. It is a statement concerning the reality of morality and moral decision making. Since in fact since most peoples moral decision making does appear to rely heavily on emotional rather than rational faculties, PZ may even be correct here.
Once again it seems you're using any excuse to tar people you disapprove of. Either you're doing this knowingly, implying that you're lying (again), or you're simply not equipped to understand these sorts of discussions. I'm not sure what a third option would be here.
So, which is it Rick?
I don't understand why Rick is complaining that "empathy" is so bad as a reason for making moral decisions. Considering the track record of his own god, I daresay that empathy doesn't enter into that things' "moral" decision-making.
DeleteNeither does consistency either, come to think of it.
Rick isn't even saying that.
DeleteRick is saying that because PZ Meyers makes the claim that morality is based (at least in part) on feelings, that PZ Meyers is therefore basing this belief upon his own feelings.
Since Rick loves him some syllogisms, here it is:
P1. PZ Meyers claims morality is based upon emotions.
P2. From P1, this claim must be based upon PZ Meyers' emotions.
C. Therefore atheists like PZ Meyers base their beliefs/claims upon their emotions.
It's such a ridiculous claim that I'm surprised that even Rick has made it, yet make it he has.
The commenter Havok has been unable to challenge philosophical articles underscoring the truth of God's existence. It is perhaps easier for him to try and 'raise Havok' by making truth claims at posts that have nothing to do with philosophical arguments.
ReplyDeleteBeginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution. This seemed to work well with a commenter named Havok who repeatedly claimed that I either ignored cogent comments or made "illogical" replies to comments in my article "How Identity Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence."
With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution. If there are any atheists who are able to discuss and debate ideas without resorting to childish slander, I would be open to it as time allows.
Once again, Rick displays his immaturity. Being unable to respond to criticism, and unable to admit mistakes Rick tries to change the subject.
DeleteRick, why not actually respond to critiques?
What are you afraid of?