Prayer and power [Archive]

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 06:04 AM

I'm surprised when people study the power of prayer, or make websites like why God won't heal amputees.

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles. If I prayed that the most beautiful woman in the world would fall in love with me, and 180982 other guys prayed the same thing, then what? If I prayed that I had all the money in the world, and another person prayed that they had enough money to survive, then what? If I prayed that I would never experience physical death, but my neighbor prays for me to die a painful death, then what?

2. Given the above, it seems reasonable for God to *detach* himself from the whole prayer situation, dontcha think?

3. When we pray, *we are rejecting power, not embracing it*. Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God, who would then give benefits to them and resurrect their dead warriors and all that. Press the button, and X happens. *BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*. Or, rather, they ought not to have that expectation. Christians reject superstition, the belief that God can be controlled if I just do A, B, and C. When we pray, we ask, we question, we praise, we think, we talk, all that. But it is not result orientated! If it was, *IT WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED COMPELTELY, JUST AS THE GHOST DANCE DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY*.

4. The Lord's Prayer, given to us by Jesus, contains all that anyone ought to need to know about the reality of prayer, for the Christian. It is directed to the Father. It is about the Father. It is not about us. It recognizes the relationship, and keeps our reality in perspective. His will be done, not ours. In the kind of prayer I often see ruminated about on this forum, we wonder why *OUR WILL* is not done when we pray. That is out of order. When we pray, we ask that *God's will* be done. Do we ask for things? Of course. Food, forgiveness, strength, all that stuff, culminating in deliverance from evil. Yet those requests are within the framework of God's will. Jesus prayed before the crucifixion, and God's will was done. *That's prayer*.

Pardon me for saying so...but I think this is all basic Christianity and I'm surprised that individuals think they've had some major epiphany by realizing that God doesn't heal amputees or that people would waste time conducting scientific studies on prayer efficacy. When we pray, we are embracing our weakness, and we are not exerting any power over God at all. Christ told us not to put him to the test, and expecting prayer to "work" is doing just that.

-Elliot

Darat

12th July 2006, 06:16 AM

I'm surprised when people study the power of prayer, or make websites like why God won't heal amputees.

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles. If I prayed that the most beautiful woman in the world would fall in love with me, and 180982 other guys prayed the same thing, then what? If I prayed that I had all the money in the world, and another person prayed that they had enough money to survive, then what? If I prayed that I would never experience physical death, but my neighbor prays for me to die a painful death, then what?

Yet the Bible tells us that God will answer prayers.

2. Given the above, it seems reasonable for God to *detach* himself from the whole prayer situation, dontcha think?

Not really - he's all knowing and all powerful, must Christians would not accept the limits you are putting on God's powers.

3. When we pray, *we are rejecting power, not embracing it*. Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God, who would then give benefits to them and resurrect their dead warriors and all that. Press the button, and X happens. *BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*. Or, rather, they ought not to have that expectation. Christians reject superstition, the belief that God can be controlled if I just do A, B, and C. When we pray, we ask, we question, we praise, we think, we talk, all that. But it is not result orientated! If it was, *IT WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED COMPELTELY, JUST AS THE GHOST DANCE DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY*.

A lot of theological study has been devoted to prayer and what it means, your summation does not do justice to how Christians view this very complex and difficult point of their doctrine.

4. The Lord's Prayer, given to us by Jesus, contains all that anyone ought to need to know about the reality of prayer, for the Christian. It is directed to the Father. It is about the Father. It is not about us. It recognizes the relationship, and keeps our reality in perspective. His will be done, not ours. In the kind of prayer I often see ruminated about on this forum, we wonder why *OUR WILL* is not done when we pray. That is out of order. When we pray, we ask that *God's will* be done. Do we ask for things? Of course. Food, forgiveness, strength, all that stuff, culminating in deliverance from evil. Yet those requests are within the framework of God's will. Jesus prayed before the crucifixion, and God's will was done. *That's prayer*.

The Lord's Prayer has also been a matter of great debate and again your summary does not do it justice, indeed we need to always start with which version and even which translation before we start to discuss it.

An interesting site that may provide you with a good starting point to explore the fascinating history of the Lord's prayer and some of the debates about what it actually means can be found at this site: http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm

Pardon me for saying so...but I think this is all basic Christianity and I'm surprised that individuals think they've had some major epiphany by realizing that God doesn't heal amputees or that people would waste time conducting scientific studies on prayer efficacy. When we pray, we are embracing our weakness, and we are not exerting any power over God at all. Christ told us not to put him to the test, and expecting prayer to "work" is doing just that.

-Elliot

With all due respect it would appear from this post that you have a superficial understanding of Christian doctrine and the history of Christian theological debate.

Genesius

12th July 2006, 06:20 AM

Marquis de Carabas

12th July 2006, 06:35 AM

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles. If I prayed that the most beautiful woman in the world would fall in love with me, and 180982 other guys prayed the same thing, then what?
Try not to be the guy who winds up with sloppy one hundred eighty thousand nine hundred eighty thirds.

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 06:44 AM

Yet the Bible tells us that God will answer prayers.

Yes, but you can answer a question in many, many, many ways. I often give vauge answers to my students...for a very particular reason.

What I'm saying is that God doesn't answer prayers in the same way that someone would answer 8 if you ask what's 2 times 4.

Not really - he's all knowing and all powerful, must Christians would not accept the limits you are putting on God's powers.

I disagree with you on this point, and short of polling data that's that.

A lot of theological study has been devoted to prayer and what it means, your summation does not do justice to how Christians view this very complex and difficult point of their doctrine.

I think that many theologians probably go through contortions that lay Christians don't...but that's of course speculation on my part. I talk to ordinary Catholics about these things often, people who'll never visit forums or write theolgoical treatises. I pray with people often too. We understand the deal. No one is ever going to stand up one day and say "wait a second...what if God doesn't heal this person's cancer...then what!?!?!?"

During the Catholic Mass petitions, specific ones, are *always* offered, and we perfectly understand that it is God's will, and not our will, that will govern the "results" of our prayer. The exercise of prayer in and of itself, however, is the focus of the Prayers of the Faithful, and not the result. I hate to call this elementary, but this is century upon century, probably literally billions of Catholic masses.

The Lord's Prayer has also been a matter of great debate and again your summary does not do it justice, indeed we need to always start with which version and even which translation before we start to discuss it.

Thanks for the weblink, forgive me for saying this...but those translations are themselves loaded, don't you think? Without question the website is anti-Church. Of course though...the gospels were written in Greek. At the moment I don't know where the Aramaic came from...was the Aramaic deduced from the Greek? The site doesn't say.

Here is something more direct. Which is better? I dunno.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/lordpray.html

With all due respect it would appear from this post that you have a superficial understanding of Christian doctrine and the history of Christian theological debate.

Thanks Darat! Have a nice one!

-Elliot

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 06:52 AM

Jesus also said:
John 14:13-14

Pretty straightforward - you ask for it in Jesus' name, and you got it. A promise Jesus has broken every single day for over 2000 years.

When you pray in *his name*. When you pray, with expectations that anything you want be done, you are praying in *your name*, that your will be done.

When you pray in the name of Jesus, you pray that his will be done, and not yours.

When we pray that a loved one be healed of cancer, do we pray that so that the Father may be glorified in the Son, or, do we pray that so we could have a loved one healed so we can continue to live with that person, or, so that person could continue to live?

If Jesus said, ask me anything, and I'll do it!, not only would I completely succumb to your point, I also reckon that Christians wouldn't pray nearly as much as they do. But there are additions like "in my name", and "that the Father be glorified in the Son" that, again, pllace the focus on God and not on ourselves.

-Elliot

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 06:54 AM

One more thing Darat if you'd care to address...how would God handle situation 1 that I offered, in your opinion? Of course this assumes that God exists.

-Elliot

Darat

12th July 2006, 06:57 AM

...snip..

I disagree with you on this point, and short of polling data that's that.

...snip...

It is part of the Roman Catholic faith and is therefore the belief of the vast majority of Christians.

I think that many theologians probably go through contortions that lay Christians don't...but that's of course speculation on my part. I talk to ordinary Catholics about these things often, people who'll never visit forums or write theolgoical treatises. I pray with people often too. We understand the deal. No one is ever going to stand up one day and say "wait a second...what if God doesn't heal this person's cancer...then what!?!?!?"

Therefore as I said your understanding is superficial I would suggest you visit the Vatican's website and start to read what the Pope and others have to say about prayer. I would hope you would find it enlightening. (I also include another site of links below.)

During the Catholic Mass petitions, specific ones, are *always* offered, and we perfectly understand that it is God's will, and not our will, that will govern the "results" of our prayer. The exercise of prayer in and of itself, however, is the focus of the Prayers of the Faithful, and not the result. I hate to call this elementary, but this is century upon century, probably literally billions of Catholic masses.

I presume you mean Roman Catholic? A good starting point that has links to many of the "classical" Roman Catholic treaties etc. on prayer is here: http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/prayer.html#Texts

Thanks for the weblink, forgive me for saying this...but those translations are themselves loaded, don't you think? Without question the website is anti-Church. Of course though...the gospels were written in Greek. At the moment I don't know where the Aramaic came from...was the Aramaic deduced from the Greek? The site doesn't say.

Which translations? The different ones in the KJ Bible, the different ones used by the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches?

Here is something more direct. Which is better? I dunno.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/lordpray.html

...snip...

I don't know either - which was rather the point of my first reply.

Darat

12th July 2006, 07:01 AM

One more thing Darat if you'd care to address...how would God handle situation 1 that I offered, in your opinion? Of course this assumes that God exists.

-Elliot

I have no idea, and doesn't the Bible makes it very clear that God is not subject to human limitations, and that humans can never understand God?

Meffy

12th July 2006, 07:02 AM

Yes, but you can answer a question in many, many, many ways.
Indeed. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812)

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 07:02 AM

It is part of the Roman Catholic faith and is therefore the belief of the vast majority of Christians.

Darat, being all-knowing and all-powerful doesn't mean that you *have* to do anything and everything that anybody asks you to do.

-Elliot

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 07:05 AM

I have no idea, and doesn't the Bible makes it very clear that God is not subject to human limitations, and that humans can never understand God?

OK, so then it is possible for God to allow me to live forever and die right now?

*God* may have no limitations. What about us? Do any limitations restrict me from living forever and dying right now?

I think you're suggesting that a Christian ought never to use reason, logic, or good sense because God is not subject to human limitations. If so, it's pointless for me to continue to discuss anything in this forum, don't you think?

-Elliot

Meffy

12th July 2006, 07:09 AM

"New, improved, omniscient-omnipotent-omnibenevolent GOD answers prayers!!! Not even the fall of the sparrow escapes his notice, so you can be sure he'll listen to you!"
(some restrictions may apply)

Grand absolutes lose their strength when hedged about with all these disclaimers and exceptions and -- let's be honest here -- excuses. If God is such a grand absolute why does he depend on escape clauses and weasel words to get him out of all those tight spots?

Anti_Hypeman

12th July 2006, 07:16 AM

*BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*

How do you explain the lines outside Benny Hinns crusades? Why do the two christian channels I get concentrate on promising healings 24/7? Why does Pat Robertson constantly jawbone about the "law of reciprocity", if you give to Jesus he WILL give it back with interest. Why do they constantly run sotries about people who gave to the 700 club and mysteriously got healed or found a large check in the mail? Why dont mainstream chrisitans condem him if its not true?

My city is full of small time faith healers and "healing rooms". Are the people who run these events or participate in them christian? I suppose the mega rich christian groups are supported by just a tiny minority? Or are they all fake christians doomed to hell?

Lothian

12th July 2006, 07:16 AM

Darat, being all-knowing and all-powerful doesn't mean that you *have* to do anything and everything that anybody asks you to do.

-ElliotBeing all-knowing and all-powerful, Darat knows that. Oh......

Darat

12th July 2006, 07:20 AM

OK, so then it is possible for God to allow me to live forever and die right now?

If you believe in the Roman Catholic version of Christianity then God is capable of everything.

*God* may have no limitations. What about us? Do any limitations restrict me from living forever and dying right now?

The answer is the same if you believe in an omnipotent God then he is not limited in any way (else he would not be omnipotent).

I am of course arguing this in a very superficial manner since the limitations or not of God's power is another subject that many Chrsitians have argued over for many centuries. Some do conclude as you seem to do that there are some things God cannot do, whilst others conclude that God can do anything.

I think you're suggesting that a Christian ought never to use reason, logic, or good sense because God is not subject to human limitations. If so, it's pointless for me to continue to discuss anything in this forum, don't you think?

-Elliot

That is up to you and what you believe. However your OP seemed to be criticising Members for not understanding Christianity yet in doing so seemed to demonstrate that you were quite unaware of the depth of Christian theology and the extent of the on going debate about aspects of Christian faith such as prayer.

Bri

12th July 2006, 07:50 AM

OK, so then it is possible for God to allow me to live forever and die right now?
If you believe in the Roman Catholic version of Christianity then God is capable of everything.

Everything that is logically possible, but not the logically impossible as would be the case of allowing someone to live forever yet die at the same time.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox):

Mainstream Catholic theology eventually reconciled itself to the Greek and Arabic material the Reconquista made available, thanks in large part to Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica affirmed the notion that God could not defy logic.

-Bri

Anacoluthon64

12th July 2006, 07:55 AM

Indeed. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812)Though garbed in the enlivening raiments of satire, that story, if its background be even vaguely factual, remains a tearing heartbreaker.

Believer or no.

Dewy-eyed 'Luthon64

Tricky

12th July 2006, 07:58 AM

3. When we pray, *we are rejecting power, not embracing it*. Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God, who would then give benefits to them and resurrect their dead warriors and all that. Press the button, and X happens. *BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*. Or, rather, they ought not to have that expectation. Christians reject superstition, the belief that God can be controlled if I just do A, B, and C. When we pray, we ask, we question, we praise, we think, we talk, all that. But it is not result orientated!
I do not believe that most Christians feel this way about prayer. Listen to a survivor of a scary situation and if he is a Christian, it is likely he will say that he was saved because he prayed. The clear statement is that if he had not prayed, he would not have been saved.

And indeed, what is the point of prayer if it is nothing more than to give God credit? If it's all God's doing, then He knows it. Do you really think God requires praise in order to do what he does?

No, I believe that people pray to God with at least some expectations, even if that expectation is only that He will guide them. And a lot of times, they have much greater expectations. My father-in-law who is receiving hospice care in our home, recieves two or three cards a day called "Prayergrams" from a Baptist church where his niece worships. These cards are specifically labeled "Intercessory Prayer". Now I ask you, what could an intercessory prayer (http://www.dianedew.com/interces.html)be other than a request/hope/wish for God to intercede? Sure, they will take "no" as an answer, as the saying goes, but it is quite clear that they are asking.

I think, Elliot, that you are probably one of the only people who prays to God with absolutely no expectations of evidence that your prayer was heard.

grayman

12th July 2006, 08:02 AM

Why you'll never be able to logically debate this issue with a devout believer...

If God answers my prayers: It's a miracle.

If God doesn't answer my prayers: It's God's will.

Darat

12th July 2006, 08:03 AM

Everything that is logically possible, but not the logically impossible as would be the case of allowing someone to live forever yet die at the same time.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox):

-Bri

That is a well balanced article, thanks.

Note that it says "mainstream", this is one of those arguments that as far as I know has never been subject to a "final" decision as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.

Interestingly one way of interpreting Catholic Doctrine is that the question posed "allowing someone to live forever yet die at the same time" could be answered by Mary's Ascension to heaven? (I've never thought of this before so feel free to rain on my parade!)

Bri

12th July 2006, 08:13 AM

Note that it says "mainstream", this is one of those arguments that as far as I know has never been subject to a "final" decision as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.

I don't know. Perhaps ceo_esq will grace us with his presence and provide some insight.

Interestingly one way of interpreting Catholic Doctrine is that the question posed "allowing someone to live forever yet die at the same time" could be answered by Mary's Ascension to heaven? (I've never thought of this before so feel free to rain on my parade!)

Possibly, but that would allow the situation to be logically possible. I believe elliotfc was referring to God's ability to do the logically impossible.

-Bri

Anti_Hypeman

12th July 2006, 08:19 AM

When the miners were thought to be saved it was only by gods grace.

When all but one turned out to be dead god gets none of the blame.

Why the double standard?

JamesDillon

12th July 2006, 08:24 AM

When the miners were thought to be saved it was only by gods grace.

When all but one turned out to be dead god gets none of the blame.

Why the double standard?

I think Grayman has it right.

Good thing happens: It's a miracle, and proof of God's existence.
Bad thing happens: It's God's will.

It's the world's longest-running confirmation bias.

Anti_Hypeman

12th July 2006, 09:38 AM

I think Grayman has it right.

Good thing happens: It's a miracle, and proof of God's existence.
Bad thing happens: It's God's will.

It's the world's longest-running confirmation bias.

Its like a coach claiming to be undefeated because he does not count the losses.

RandFan

12th July 2006, 09:44 AM

Yes, but you can answer a question in many, many, many ways. How do you distinguish that from not answering a question? Prayer and "God's blessings" was a major reason I became a deist and ultimately an atheist. All of the evidence pointed to the incontrovertible fact that either God didn't answer prayers or his answers were indistinguishable from God not answering prayers. I haven't prayed in more than a decade and I could not honestly tell you how my life is demonstrably different. If my life had been different I would have gone back to praying. For the longest time after I left the church and stopped praying much of me wanted to believe, to go to church and to pray.

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 09:54 AM

Meffy

12th July 2006, 09:57 AM

Though garbed in the enlivening raiments of satire, that story, if its background be even vaguely factual, remains a tearing heartbreaker.

Believer or no.
Doesn't help to know that tens or hundreds of thousands of real-life stories are very much like the satirical one in the Onion. :-(

When Winston Churchill was told that England's neck would be wrung like a chicken's (by a little guy with a funny mustache) he responded "Some chicken! Some neck!"

When considering things like so-called "answers to prayer" I have to think "Some answer! Some omnibenevolence!"

[edited for clearer wording]

Meffy

12th July 2006, 09:58 AM

What tight spots?

Why should God do whatever we tell him to do?
Because he said he would, and he's infallible. You've had the quotations of his perfect and inviolable word earlier in the threads. Why then does he have to resort to loopholes to get out of his own promise? Seems awfully cheap to me.

[edit] What tight spots? The situations in which according to god's promise he would fulfill prayers but in which he didn't. You hardly have to dig to find such situations.

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 09:59 AM

How do you explain the lines outside Benny Hinns crusades?

You don't have to see Benny Hinn to pray. If you want to pray, pray. If you want to see Benny Hill, I mean Hinn, go see Benny Hinn. I don't know why people want to go to see Benny Hinn. I would ask them why don't they just go to church and pray.

Why do the two christian channels I get concentrate on promising healings 24/7?

They are appealing to a select number of people. How many people watch those channels by the way?

Why does Pat Robertson constantly jawbone about the "law of reciprocity", if you give to Jesus he WILL give it back with interest.

Is he only talking about this life, or the next life as well?

Why do they constantly run sotries about people who gave to the 700 club and mysteriously got healed or found a large check in the mail?

I didn't say that prayers *never* get answered. If they do get answered, it is because it is God's will, and not ours.

Why dont mainstream chrisitans condem him if its not true?

Pat Robertson *does* get bashed my mainstream Christians.

My city is full of small time faith healers and "healing rooms". Are the people who run these events or participate in them christian?

Sure, or, probably.

I suppose the mega rich christian groups are supported by just a tiny minority? Or are they all fake christians doomed to hell?

If you're talking about the mega churches that seat thousands, I submit that such people believe that God answers prayers in his own way, and not in our way.

I don't know who is doomed to hell.

-Elliot

Meffy

12th July 2006, 10:04 AM

How is this not a list of loopholes, excuses, escapes, evasions, and dodges...?

RandFan

12th July 2006, 10:07 AM

What tight spots?

Why should God do whatever we tell him to do?

-Elliot???

I'm confused.

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
--Luke 11:10 - 12 What is meant by ask and ye shall receive? Receive what?

Look closely at verse 11. If the father asks for his dying child to be spared and the child dies how is that consistent with the scripture?

elliotfc

12th July 2006, 10:11 AM

If you believe in the Roman Catholic version of Christianity then God is capable of everything.

Darat, perhaps we can both agree to yield to newadvent.org on this one:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

I'll read this over lunch, then return to this question.

The answer is the same if you believe in an omnipotent God then he is not limited in any way (else he would not be omnipotent).

Christians believe that we can grasp God's nature in several ways...the Bible of course...the person of Jesus...and using our intellects as well. I don't know how a rationalist Christian like Pascal would consider my point. The question to me is not limiting God's power. We are not God's power. We are created with limitations. Now, God could *transform* me into something that could do some extraordinary things, or all of us into doing some extraordinary things.

In the *state* we are in, God answering all of our prayers is out of order. What if we prayed for God to stop being God, and to make one of us God instead? What if we prayed for God to destroy all of the universe including himself? It's not a question of omnipotence as much as why God should jump through our hoops. Why should God do something just because we tell him to do it?

I am of course arguing this in a very superficial manner since the limitations or not of God's power is another subject that many Chrsitians have argued over for many centuries. Some do conclude as you seem to do that there are some things God cannot do, whilst others conclude that God can do anything.

If we may drop the omnipotent thing for just a bit...given our understanding of the nature of God, why should God answer every prayer, particularly the ones that just boggle the mind, the ones that would seem to create a most chaotic and untenable existence?

That is up to you and what you believe. However your OP seemed to be criticising Members for not understanding Christianity yet in doing so seemed to demonstrate that you were quite unaware of the depth of Christian theology and the extent of the on going debate about aspects of Christian faith such as prayer.

I am criticizing members for not following through with the "why doesn't God answer prayer" bit as far as it can go.

-Elliot

Anti_Hypeman

12th July 2006, 10:13 AM

I went to a live miracle crusade and saw the anguished looks on the faces of the sick that didnt get heald. They expected miracles. They were outright promised miracles if they showed faith and "gave god his cake first". Meaning that if you give god everything and trust him to take care of you he will. Go ahead and drop the rent money in the bucket because you cant outgive Jesus.

You can read the full account here http://www.lfplc.net/crusade.htm and downlaod the evidence since I recorded the event. Late night on CBN the local loon churches run shows. They all promise miracles for money and the people that pay n pray expect personal divine healng. The fact that Benny Hinn is still standing is strong proof against the biblical god.

RandFan

12th July 2006, 10:14 AM

I am criticizing members for not following through with the "why doesn't God answer prayer" bit as far as it can go.

-Elliot I would just like to know how one would distinguish your version of God answering prayers with God not answering prayers at all? It's a sincere question and I think it begs an answer.

Meffy

12th July 2006, 10:19 AM

Now, God could *transform* me into something that could do some extraordinary things, or all of us into doing some extraordinary things.
Elliot, you are already something that can do extraordinary things! You're a living, thinking person, capable of righting injustices and fixing flat tires; locating a neighboring galaxy using nothing more than binoculars -- or even just your own eyes; using a planet-spanning communications network to engage in discussion with people you'll never meet... just think of the extraordinary things you're able to do, or could learn to do.

It doesn't take a god to do that. It takes YOU. If you believe in a god too, so be it. But extraordinary things are done by perfectly ordinary people every day. Let the scales fall from your eyes and see what's going on all around you, all the time. Some of it is quite extraordinary.

Meffy

12th July 2006, 10:21 AM

@Anti_Hypeman: That kind of sick exploitation of those least deserving of such abuse... it just makes my blood boil. Almost makes me wish supernatural retribution were for real.

RandFan

12th July 2006, 10:26 AM

Elliot, you are already something that can do extraordinary things! You're a living, thinking person, capable of righting injustices and fixing flat tires; locating a neighboring galaxy using nothing more than binoculars -- or even just your own eyes; using a planet-spanning communications network to engage in discussion with people you'll never meet... just think of the extraordinary things you're able to do, or could learn to do.

It doesn't take a god to do that. It takes YOU. If you believe in a god too, so be it. But extraordinary things are done by perfectly ordinary people every day. Let the scales fall from your eyes and see what's going on all around you, all the time. Some of it is quite extraordinary.:)

cgordon

12th July 2006, 10:36 AM

You can't have it both ways. Either God is omnimax and can do anything (and will if entreated humbly enough) or God is just ignoring the prayers of the dying, the terminal, the tortured and the deformed ... as well as those of the blessed.

Or ... maybe ... there is no god and we find our own answers and have to deal with reality without hope provided by an invisible superfriend.

Meffy

12th July 2006, 10:38 AM

@RandFan: *9_9* Well, it's so. People short-change themselves all the time, and I don't think that's good for the psyche. Miracles come from people, not gods.

RandFan

12th July 2006, 10:45 AM

@RandFan: *9_9* Well, it's so. People short-change themselves all the time, and I don't think that's good for the psyche. Miracles come from people, not gods.I couldn't agree more, but why the rolling eyes? My smile was sincere. I think your post outstanding. In fact I think it worthy of a :clap:.

Meffy

12th July 2006, 10:48 AM

Heh, that was blushing. You'd not think a skunk could blush. And thanks.

BTW, your sig material makes me think of Oolon Colluphid's disproof of God's existence... (the HHGG Oolon, not the JREF one)

slingblade

12th July 2006, 11:19 AM

What tight spots?

Why should God do whatever we tell him to do?

-Elliot

He (and his son) should do what (they) supposedly promised to do. Nothing more or less:

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

There are plenty of others. The only requirement I can see in any of them is that the person praying should believe. "Believe what" is not specified. But you can cover the eventualities pretty easily:

I'm praying to God, because I believe in God. That's one.
I believe God can give me what I ask for, because he's God. That's two.
I believe God will give me what I ask for, because he said he would, see above. That's three.

So when I believe, and I ask for something over a period of decades and don't get it, and when I ask for different things and don't get them, either, what am I to think?

1. God lies.
2. I am asking for help from an imaginary being.

Now, you can make apologies for God, and you can invent all kinds of conditions. But the truth is, the promises are very simple, and have only one condition: belief. And yet time and again, the promises are not kept.

And to use parsimony, the simplest reason, that's because there is nothing there which made any promises, nor which can keep any promises.

Otherwise, God's real, but he's a big fat liar.

RandFan

12th July 2006, 11:27 AM

Heh, that was blushing. Now I'm blushing. Do you have a link for Oolon Colluphid's disproof of God's existence. I didn't see it. If not I will do a search.

Thanks.

RandFan

12th July 2006, 11:37 AM

empeake

12th July 2006, 12:10 PM

3. When we pray, *we are rejecting power, not embracing it*. Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God, who would then give benefits to them and resurrect their dead warriors and all that. Press the button, and X happens. *BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*. Or, rather, they ought not to have that expectation. Christians reject superstition, the belief that God can be controlled if I just do A, B, and C. When we pray, we ask, we question, we praise, we think, we talk, all that. But it is not result orientated! If it was, *IT WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED COMPELTELY, JUST AS THE GHOST DANCE DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY*.
:confused:
This contradicts everything we see: faith healers, collective praying for the soldiers in Irak, prayers for the ill, etc. Christians pray because they expect results. Of course, when the results are favorable, it's God's miracle; when they aren't, God works in mysterious ways.

Ghost dances? Sunday mass is a the modern version. The only difference with the tribal rituals is that Christianity is the dominant religion. If and when Christianity loses its top spot, its rituals will be seen as superstition.

If we start talking about Catholicism, the examples multiply. I've seen pilgrims walk hundreds of miles to ask for special favors from God or the Virgin Mary. I've seen parents crawling on bloody knees up to a church, with their sick child in arms, begging for a miracle cure. I've heard endless rosaries in hospitals. And when the results are not what expected, they just try again, and again, and again, because the believe their prayers weren't good enough. These are the ghost dances of our times.

Meffy

12th July 2006, 12:12 PM

Now I'm blushing. Do you have a link for Oolon Colluphid's disproof of God's existence.
Here 'tis: http://www.englisch.schule.de/wiesmoor/ency.htm

[edit] It's in the Babel Fish article.

Freethinker

12th July 2006, 01:19 PM

roger

12th July 2006, 01:36 PM

Eliot,

We do not ask that God answers ALL prayers (despite the biblical verses quoted above). Or even most. That's not the point of the amputee website.

The point the amputee website makes is that God never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever (ever) answers an amputee's prayers regarding amputation. Yet there are all kinds of claims that God answers prayers to cure cancer, save miners, etc.

So, either God really hate amputees, or people are mistaken about God is answering prayers to cure cancer, etc.

I'm guessing you fall into the latter camp?

roger

12th July 2006, 01:50 PM

Pardon me for saying so...but I think this is all basic Christianity and I'm surprised that individuals think they've had some major epiphany by realizing that God doesn't heal amputees or that people would waste time conducting scientific studies on prayer efficacy. When we pray, we are embracing our weakness, and we are not exerting any power over God at all. Christ told us not to put him to the test, and expecting prayer to "work" is doing just that.

-ElliotWell, this sounds like your opinion on the matter. Here are some links, from major and minor Christian sources, which take a different tack. This is why we are confused - major Christian sources claim that God answers prayers.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2002/001/1.11.html
http://www.newlightministries.com/gary.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/moody_sermons/m3.html
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/prayers.html
http://www.christianwomentoday.com/prayer/2ways.html
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1023817&item_no=15875
http://www.raptureready.com/resource/anonymous/kc8.html
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/prayansw.html
http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2000/3/1/article_02.htm

I could just keep linking, but that would be annoying to both of us, and you get the idea. None of these links claim that all prayers are answered, or that the answer is what we want, but that it sometimes work (for convuluted reasons that I don't personally buy).

Yet amputees never get their prayers answered. Weird, huh?

Anti_Hypeman

12th July 2006, 02:51 PM

Maybe somebody that god really loves is praying every day for amputees not to be healed.

You could wrestle god and make him tap out like Jacob did. God can be made to serve your will with physical force. Who needs prayer when you can get better results from a perfected abdominal stretch. Genesis 32:22-30

Meffy

12th July 2006, 02:58 PM

*ponder*

Can 2000-pound leg presses, or rather fake 2000-pound leg presses, make God serve your will?

RandFan

12th July 2006, 07:07 PM

Here 'tis: http://www.englisch.schule.de/wiesmoor/ency.htm

[edit] It's in the Babel Fish article.I've read it. It's good. :)

RandFan

12th July 2006, 07:12 PM

ceo_esq

12th July 2006, 07:40 PM

An interesting site that may provide you with a good starting point to explore the fascinating history of the Lord's prayer and some of the debates about what it actually means can be found at this site: http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm

That is indeed interesting. I wish I knew how reflective it was of mainstream scholarship. The website as a whole seems to be somewhat preoccupied with fringe theories of the Da Vinci Code variety.

roger

12th July 2006, 08:47 PM

Also, to follow up on the amputee website. It is, of course, a bit of a glib argument. A soundbite for a soundbite age. Let's not mistake that glibness, however, for absense of a very serious argument.

That argument, with less soundbite appeal, is that in cases where we can't possibly mistake whether God answered the prayer or not, he never has answered. Not once. Please provide a reference if you disagree (there's a million in it for you if you can do that, btw).

Yet where we can make that mistake, where it is entirely possible that God, if he exists, didn't answer that specific prayer, we have millions of cases where people, looking for that pattern, shout out "God answered my prayer". Refer to my links above for just a few examples.

It doesn't roll of the tongue so easily when put that way. So we ask, with the weight of those serious questions behind us, "why doesn't God answer the prayers of amputees?"

Darat

13th July 2006, 12:11 AM

That is indeed interesting. I wish I knew how reflective it was of mainstream scholarship. The website as a whole seems to be somewhat preoccupied with fringe theories of the Da Vinci Code variety.

I found the site a little while ago when I was searching for info about the translation of the Lord's Prayer, I never checked if you like the scholarship of the site. I did however find quite a few other sites with similar styles of translations but that one was good in having a potted a history of the different ways it could be and has been translated. (The spoken prayer audio which I think sounds wonderful probably helped keep that particular site in mind.)

elliotfc

13th July 2006, 05:26 AM

:confused:
This contradicts everything we see: faith healers, collective praying for the soldiers in Irak, prayers for the ill, etc. Christians pray because they expect results. Of course, when the results are favorable, it's God's miracle; when they aren't, God works in mysterious ways.

Yes, they expect the results that God will provide.

They do not expect the results that they want, unless, what they want is in line with what God wants.

You have faith, basically, that Christians are out of their minds. I don't share that faith. Why not just say that. Christians just don't make sense when it comes to the topic of prayer (let's just stick with that singular point, I'm sure you'd like to nominate other things). Fine. Then I can have one less person to respond to.

To you, you see Christians making specific petitions, those petitions not being fulfilled in our result-oriented thinking, and you actually believe that Christians ignore this fact, and just keep on praying, pretending that unfilled petitions...what, never happened? My point is that Christians understand, better than you do apparently, that God's will ought to be done, and not our will. *This distinction, which I don't think anybody here is willing to accept, is what enables prayer, and is what makes prayer something that will continue to happen*. Now, if you're not willing to grant Christianity this nuance, and if your stance is that we're just all completely daft, please say that explicitly, so I can weed you out of the group of people in this thread. I'm not going to be able to keep up with every response the way things are going on, please help me out here. Tell me that you think Christians are complete morons when it comes to prayer...if you think that, if you don't mind.

-Elliot

allanb

13th July 2006, 06:38 AM

When you pray in the name of Jesus, you pray that his will be done, and not yours.Then why bother? If God is omnipotent, his will will be done, by definition.

Bri

13th July 2006, 06:43 AM

So, either God really hate amputees, or people are mistaken about God is answering prayers to cure cancer, etc.

I'm guessing you fall into the latter camp?

This sounds like a false dilemma to me. Isn't it possible that God sometimes cures cancer, but doesn't choose to regrow limbs (or grow an extra limb, for that matter)?

Well, this sounds like your opinion on the matter. Here are some links, from major and minor Christian sources, which take a different tack. This is why we are confused - major Christian sources claim that God answers prayers.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2002/001/1.11.html
http://www.newlightministries.com/gary.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/moody_sermons/m3.html
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/prayers.html
http://www.christianwomentoday.com/prayer/2ways.html
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1023817&item_no=15875
http://www.raptureready.com/resource/anonymous/kc8.html
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/prayansw.html
http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2000/3/1/article_02.htm

God not granting all prayers would seem only to be a problem for anyone interpreting those Bible passages that were posted as meaning that God grants all prayers. I'm not sure how many people would fall into that category. I couldn't find any such beliefs on any of the links posted.

-Bri

Meffy

13th July 2006, 07:03 AM

Tricky

13th July 2006, 07:37 AM

And if he's omniscient he already knows the needs, wishes, and devotion of those who are supposed to pray, and if he's omnibenevolent he will do what those who are devoted need.
If indeed prayers are what Elliot says they are, then prayers make zero difference to God. Unless he just likes having his ego stroked. Somehow it seems like God should be above that kind of petty thing.

Meffy

13th July 2006, 07:39 AM

*thinks of Lazarus Long's words on the subject and nods agreement*

Anacoluthon64

13th July 2006, 07:42 AM

Then why bother? If God is omnipotent, his will will be done, by definition.And if he's omniscient he already knows the needs, wishes, and devotion of those who are supposed to pray, and if he's omnibenevolent he will do what those who are devoted need.To which, I think, can only be added that if god's also infallible, there's nil room for error. So prayer shouldn't be necessary to begin with.

Ever.

'Luthon64

Tricky

13th July 2006, 07:48 AM

*thinks of Lazarus Long's words on the subject and nods agreement*
The Heinlen character? I'm not familiar with his position. (And for failing to include the quote, you should be de-scented).

Myself, I'm more partial to Ambrose Bierce (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/p.html).
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

Genesius

13th July 2006, 07:59 AM

The Heinlen character? I'm not familiar with his position. (And for failing to include the quote, you should be de-scented).
Heinlein had a number of good quotes on the subject:

History does not record anywhere a religion that has any rational basis.
Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help.
But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
And, off topic but my fave anyway:

Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors — and miss.
ETA a whole buncha quotes.

Beerina

13th July 2006, 08:02 AM

Try not to be the guy who winds up with sloppy one hundred eighty thousand nine hundred eighty thirds.

Reminds me of that line from Clerks. Well, I guess we've gotta call it "Clerks 1", now.

One guy finds out his girlfriend had admitted to sex with like seven guys. Then he finds out she gave a hummer to 38 guys, and they were arguing as to why she didn't think that "counted". From a guy's point of view, it sure did.

Anyhoo, she leaves, and his buddy puts his hand on his shoulder and says to him, "Well, at least it wasn't 37."

Beerina

13th July 2006, 08:06 AM

Darat, being all-knowing and all-powerful doesn't mean that you *have* to do anything and everything that anybody asks you to do.

-Elliot

Nah, if you're all-powerful, you can just sit back and watch the violence and sordid sexual activities, and "tune in" on anything of particular interest. What a sick f***!

Meffy

13th July 2006, 08:07 AM

Anyone who wants to try to de-scent a human-sized skunk is welcome to try. :-} Won't work. Not the way intended, anyhow...

The next-to-last in Genesius' post is the one I was thinking of.

RandFan

13th July 2006, 08:11 AM

My point is that Christians understand, better than you do apparently, that God's will ought to be done, and not our will. *This distinction, which I don't think anybody here is willing to accept, is what enables prayer, and is what makes prayer something that will continue to happen*. No, this is just wrong. While I can't speak for everyone there are a number of posters here who are making a very important distinction that you are ignoring.

God's will is to NEVER heal those that otherwise can NEVER be healed.
or
God doesn't heal anyone.
or
There is no God.

There are only 3 possibilities.

Beerina

13th July 2006, 08:12 AM

Everything that is logically possible, but not the logically impossible as would be the case of allowing someone to live forever yet die at the same time.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox):
Mainstream Catholic theology eventually reconciled itself to the Greek and Arabic material the Reconquista made available, thanks in large part to Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica affirmed the notion that God could not defy logic.

-Bri

I note the Catholic's version of God is inferior to Carl Sagan's version of the creators of the universe in Contact (book version). In the book, the aliens have discovered that, buried billions or trillions of digits into transcendental numbers like pi are encodings of messages that statistically shouldn't be there, even allowing for the absurdely large number of digits. Hence they must have been placed there not just by the creator of the universe, but the far deeper creator who reated logic itself.

RandFan

13th July 2006, 08:15 AM

My point is that Christians understand, better than you do apparently, that God's will ought to be done, and not our will.I know you would rather ignore these questions but I'm going to keep asking in the vain hope that you will answer. If what you are saying is true then why all of the scriptures that contradict this position? By not answering you demonstrate that you are willing to be obtuse to protect your own world view. Fine but don't lecture us about nuance.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Please to explain this scripture? Why is it in the Bible? What does it mean?

1.) This is not God's meaning.
2.) This is God's meaning.
3.) Something else.

????

RandFan

13th July 2006, 08:27 AM

This sounds like a false dilemma to me. Isn't it possible that God sometimes cures cancer, but doesn't choose to regrow limbs (or grow an extra limb, for that matter)? Ok, WHY?

Why is it that God never heals that which otherwise is impossible to heal?

This is a very important question. One that no one is making any attempt to answer. How can cures of otherwise curable diseases be attributed to God if God is unwilling to cure otherwise incurable maladies.

Inquiring minds would like to know. Sadly there is no answer. Now you can claim that God chooses not to heal these people. Ok, why does the Bible say And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. --Matthew 21:22

That is a single sentence. It's pretty straightforward. No ambiguities.

1.) This is God's meaning in which case he lied.
2.) This isn't God's meaning. In which case the Bible can't be relied on.

Meffy

13th July 2006, 08:29 AM

roger

13th July 2006, 08:49 AM

This sounds like a false dilemma to me. Isn't it possible that God sometimes cures cancer, but doesn't choose to regrow limbs (or grow an extra limb, for that matter)?Yes, it's a false dilemma. As I posted later, please don't be distracted by the soundbite quality of the question. The point is not about amputees per se, it's that whenever there can be no doubt whether God answers a prayer or not, he never does. When one can confuse a normal event with an answered prayer, there's tons of examples of 'answered prayers'.

I will stipulate that regardless of the "no doubt" scenerio that anyone can think up, we can also make up some counter reason for why God would not answer any prayer in that instance. - "Oh, God doesn't answer prayers when there is an MRI machine being used, along with a xyz chemical protocol. he only answers if one of the two is being used."

The claim is not that we can prove, beyond all doubt, that no prayers are answered. The claim is that we can specify a large number of scenerios where we can reasonably show no prayers are answered. You can move the goal posts by just making up some reason for why a prayer is not answered in that instance, but that's not parsimonious, because the reasons are going to vary based on the scenerio. I.e., in scenerio A God doesn't answer because MRI machines are used, but in scenerio B it's because something else (he just doesn't want to regrow limbs). It's arbitrary, and just so. So, occam's razor suggests the simpler answer - no prayers are being answered at all.

Also, there is less of a false dilemma in my statement than you might think. I stated "either God really hate amputees, or people are mistaken about God is answering prayers to cure cancer, etc." Just replace "hate" with "chooses not to heal", and I have covered your case. Why would God choose not to heal an amputee? It makes no sense. Unless no prayers are being answered at all.

Anti_Hypeman

13th July 2006, 09:11 AM

Pat Robertson heals HIV by pointing his hand at the TV and squinting. Ernest Angley, Benny Hinn, and the rest of the bozos make claims of god healing HIV/AIDS.

He can heal uncurable maladies as long as there are no visible physical symptoms. If the person dies anyway its because they lost faith and "let the devil steal their healing". Dont forget that the miracle can be revoked at anytime and its your fault. Skeptical examination can be seen as a lack of faith and so can the continued use of proper medication.

Anacoluthon64

13th July 2006, 09:19 AM

*ponder* What unit of measurement should be used to denote the power of prayer in everyday calculations? The paternoster-hour? Too easily confused with pH for acidity/alkalinity. The kilosupplication? The old avoirdupois beseechment? Scientists are baffledTM.Hmm, good question...

How about 1 ask = 1,000 pleads, 1 plead = 1,000 grovels?

Oh, and, in terms of returns, 1 favour = ∞ asks.

'Luthon64

grayman

13th July 2006, 09:31 AM

slingblade

13th July 2006, 09:39 AM

This sounds like a false dilemma to me. Isn't it possible that God sometimes cures cancer, but doesn't choose to regrow limbs (or grow an extra limb, for that matter)?

Then, apparently, God misspoke himself.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

God not granting all prayers would seem only to be a problem for anyone interpreting those Bible passages that were posted as meaning that God grants all prayers. [...]

How else should I interpret it? Why make such a promise in such a way if that isn't what God meant to say? Why say it at all? Remember, if Jesus was God in human form, then God made that particular promise directly to us with his very own mouth.

Here's the problem: any parent, upon reading just that one verse, is going to tap God on his celestial shoulder and say, "Heavenly Father, are you insane?"

"You know you can't give children everything they ask for; we all know it. Kids ask for stupid things, selfish things. They ask for deadly, hurtful things. Kids are mean! They're cruel and self-centered and impulsive. You can't give a kid such a dangerous weapon as that and expect things to go well...."

At that point, I would think most parents (at least) would pause and say to themselves, "A reasonable, loving, sane God couldn't possibly have said that. A reasonable, loving, sane parent would never say it, so why would a god?"

That never, so far as we can know, has God ever restored an amputated limb (or even a limb that was unformed or malformed at birth) as a result of prayer, is obviously indicative that there is a BIG problem somewhere.

Tricky

13th July 2006, 09:51 AM

"You know you can't give children everything they ask for; we all know it. Kids ask for stupid things, selfish things. They ask for deadly, hurtful things. Kids are mean! They're cruel and self-centered and impulsive. You can't give a kid such a dangerous weapon as that and expect things to go well...."
And then there's the problem where there are two mutually conflicting prayers, like if the two opponants in a game both earnestly pray for victory. Does God pick the one with more talent?

slingblade

13th July 2006, 10:00 AM

And then there's the problem where there are two mutually conflicting prayers, like if the two opponants in a game both earnestly pray for victory. Does God pick the one with more talent?

Exactly. And what about war?

Someone stop me....I feel a Godwin coming on..... ;)

Anyway, I just have to agree with Roger:

[W]henever there can be no doubt whether God answers a prayer or not, he never does. When one can confuse a normal event with an answered prayer, there's tons of examples of 'answered prayers'.

Meffy

13th July 2006, 10:02 AM

Oh, and, in terms of returns, 1 favour = ∞ asks.
I posit without evidence a correspondence between these and the well-known attaboy/aw<rule8> equivalency.

Bri

13th July 2006, 10:13 AM

Ok, WHY?

Why is it that God never heals that which otherwise is impossible to heal?

Before I answer, keep in mind that because you cannot answer "why" doesn't mean that it isn't possible that God heals only certain afflictions and not others. That said, I can think of a number of reasons that would likely be acceptable to Christians. Perhaps God wants there to be serious and definite consequences to purposely chopping off someone's arm. If that person could pray to grow it back, that would negate the consequences.

This is a very important question. One that no one is making any attempt to answer. How can cures of otherwise curable diseases be attributed to God if God is unwilling to cure otherwise incurable maladies.

It is also possible that medicine only heals those afflictions that God wants healed. In other words, perhaps God works through natural means to achieve his goals. Perhaps God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists (perhaps in order to ensure our ability to make free choices).

Inquiring minds would like to know. Sadly there is no answer. Now you can claim that God chooses not to heal these people.

I'm not actually claiming anything here, other than that there are possible explanations.

Ok, why does the Bible say And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. --Matthew 21:22

A better question is why does nobody except atheists interpret these passages in the way you're interpreting them? I cannot find a single reference on the Internet of a Christian who believes that God grants everything that is prayed for.

That is a single sentence. It's pretty straightforward. No ambiguities.

1.) This is God's meaning in which case he lied.
2.) This isn't God's meaning. In which case the Bible can't be relied on.

I agree that to me the passage seems pretty straightforward (particularly taken out of the context of the rest of the Bible). You'd probably have to ask a Christian why they interpret the passage as they interpret it, but it is clear that few if any Christians interpret it the way you did.

-Bri

slingblade

13th July 2006, 10:16 AM

slingblade

13th July 2006, 10:24 AM

Matthew 18: When he was going back to the city in the morning, [Jesus] was hungry.
19: Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went over to it, but found nothing on it except leaves. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again." And immediately the fig tree withered.
20: When the disciples saw this, they were amazed and said, "How was it that the fig tree withered immediately?"
21: Jesus said to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done.
22: Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."

So, there's the context. (I know that particular bit is a favorite story of many on these boards.)

And that, along with numerous other supporting verses, is what has always led me to believe that God promised to not just answer prayers, but grant them. All. Imagine my disappointment. ;)

Bri

13th July 2006, 10:25 AM

Yes, it's a false dilemma. As I posted later, please don't be distracted by the soundbite quality of the question. The point is not about amputees per se, it's that whenever there can be no doubt whether God answers a prayer or not, he never does. When one can confuse a normal event with an answered prayer, there's tons of examples of 'answered prayers'.

Unfortunately, that's in-line with the notion that God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists, God works in mysterious ways, etc.

The claim is not that we can prove, beyond all doubt, that no prayers are answered. The claim is that we can specify a large number of scenerios where we can reasonably show no prayers are answered.

Well, sure, if there are a lot of people who are praying to have their amputated arm restored, or to grow an extra leg, or when one person prays for someone else's prayer to not be fulfilled, then it is trivial to show that there are a lot of cases where prayers are not answered. But I doubt you will find any Christian who believes otherwise.

You can move the goal posts by just making up some reason for why a prayer is not answered in that instance, but that's not parsimonious, because the reasons are going to vary based on the scenerio. I.e., in scenerio A God doesn't answer because MRI machines are used, but in scenerio B it's because something else (he just doesn't want to regrow limbs). It's arbitrary, and just so.

There are other reasons such as God not wanting us to know for certain that he exists that can cover nearly any of these cases without resorting to specific reasons for each scenario such as the ones you provided.

So, occam's razor suggests the simpler answer - no prayers are being answered at all.

Occam's razor suggests that God doesn't exist at all.

Also, there is less of a false dilemma in my statement than you might think. I stated "either God really hate amputees, or people are mistaken about God is answering prayers to cure cancer, etc." Just replace "hate" with "chooses not to heal", and I have covered your case. Why would God choose not to heal an amputee? It makes no sense. Unless no prayers are being answered at all.

Again, there are many reasons that one could come up with that God might choose not to heal an amputee (or grow a third leg on a person or any number of other things that one might pray for), but might choose to heal someone with cancer.

-Bri

Bri

13th July 2006, 10:31 AM

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

How else should I interpret it?

I don't know (I'm not a Christian) but I'm quite certain that few if any Christians interpret it the way you have.

At that point, I would think most parents (at least) would pause and say to themselves, "A reasonable, loving, sane God couldn't possibly have said that. A reasonable, loving, sane parent would never say it, so why would a god?"

I agree, which is why I'd be willing to bet that it's not generally interpreted the way you're interpreting it.

That never, so far as we can know, has God ever restored an amputated limb (or even a limb that was unformed or malformed at birth) as a result of prayer, is obviously indicative that there is a BIG problem somewhere.

Or indicative of the fact that God, if he exists, obviously doesn't grant everything that's prayed for.

-Bri

Bri

13th July 2006, 10:34 AM

A better question is why does nobody except atheists interpret these passages in the way you're interpreting them? I cannot find a single reference on the Internet of a Christian who believes that God grants everything that is prayed for.
I was a Christian for over 30 years. I interpreted them the same way, then.

Are you saying that you honestly believed that God grants everything that is prayed for? So there is nothing that you prayed for that didn't come true (or did you never pray as a Christian)? Somehow I doubt that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and change "nobody" to "almost nobody."

ETA: Even fundies tend to qualify "God grants all prayers" by saying that only those prayers that are "worthy" are granted (or perhaps those who are "worthy" have all their prayers granted). Even the context that you provided include the phrase "if you have faith and do not waver" which certainly seems to provide an "out" for prayers that aren't granted (the person obviously didn't have faith or wavered).

-Bri

slingblade

13th July 2006, 10:42 AM

Are you saying that you honestly believed that God grants everything that is prayed for? So there is nothing that you prayed for that didn't come true (or did you never pray as a Christian)? Somehow I doubt that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and change "nobody" to "almost nobody."

-Bri

It's fine with me if you doubt it; it's anecdote. Not evidence, and not provable.

All I can tell you is that from earliest childhood, I was taught that God answers all prayers, if we have enough faith. "Enough," however, was never defined, so if your prayer wasn't granted or answered, it was your fault. You lacked faith. Even as a firm believer, I always thought that was mighty convenient.

Think about it: in order to have "enough" faith in the granting of prayer, you can never, ever doubt that God does grant all prayer. If you do that, even one time, you obviously don't have "enough" faith.

For God, it's obviously a win-win.

Bri

13th July 2006, 10:49 AM

All I can tell you is that from earliest childhood, I was taught that God answers all prayers, if we have enough faith.

There's the key qualifier I was looking for.

"Enough," however, was never defined, so if your prayer wasn't granted or answered, it was your fault. You lacked faith. Even as a firm believer, I always thought that was mighty convenient.

Think about it: in order to have "enough" faith in the granting of prayer, you can never, ever doubt that God does grant all prayer. If you do that, even one time, you obviously don't have "enough" faith.

For God, it's obviously a win-win.

I agree.

-Bri

slingblade

13th July 2006, 11:01 AM

There's the key qualifier I was looking for.

Yes, but it's always been there: I bolded the word "believing" in Matt 21:22 for that purpose.

I agree.

Cool.

BlackCat

13th July 2006, 11:25 AM

I note the Catholic's version of God is inferior to Carl Sagan's version of the creators of the universe in Contact (book version). In the book, the aliens have discovered that, buried billions or trillions of digits into transcendental numbers like pi are encodings of messages that statistically shouldn't be there, even allowing for the absurdely large number of digits. Hence they must have been placed there not just by the creator of the universe, but the far deeper creator who reated logic itself.

Wasn't that great? I cried at the end of that book, which is unusual for me, because books rarely make me cry.

I like Sagan's god (gods?) better (than the Xian god), because he actually gave proof of his existence, without anyone having to ask. Kind've like a bonus for becoming technologically advanced.
BlackCat

Bri

13th July 2006, 11:40 AM

Yes, but it's always been there: I bolded the word "believing" in Matt 21:22 for that purpose.

You can see where I thought you were indicating otherwise:

God not granting all prayers would seem only to be a problem for anyone interpreting those Bible passages that were posted as meaning that God grants all prayers. [...]
How else should I interpret it?

-Bri

slingblade

13th July 2006, 11:42 AM

You can see where I thought you were indicating otherwise

Yes, true. Mea culpa.

empeake

13th July 2006, 11:49 AM

You have faith, basically, that Christians are out of their minds. I don't share that faith. Why not just say that.

...and you actually believe that Christians ignore this fact, and just keep on praying, pretending that unfilled petitions...what, never happened?

...and if your stance is that we're just all completely daft...

...Tell me that you think Christians are complete morons when it comes to prayer...if you think that, if you don't mind.
Nice straw man. Now, please do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth.

Christians just don't make sense when it comes to the topic of prayer...
Your words, not mine. And yet you claim to embody the true understanding of what goes on in every Christian's head.

My point is that Christians understand, better than you do apparently, that God's will ought to be done, and not our will. *This distinction, which I don't think anybody here is willing to accept, is what enables prayer, and is what makes prayer something that will continue to happen*.
Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here: People pray so God's will be done.

Yes, they expect the results that God will provide.

They do not expect the results that they want, unless, what they want is in line with what God wants.
Yes, I did understand correctly.

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles...
Unless, as you said, the answer is God's will, and in line with what you wanted.

2. Given the above, it seems reasonable for God to *detach* himself from the whole prayer situation, dontcha think?
But people don't detach God from the prayer situation. You said people pray so God's will be done. In this case, God can't detach himself.

3. ...Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God... ...*BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*... ...But it is not result orientated!...
You said people pray so God's will be done. What happens if they don't pray? If praying makes a difference in the end result, then people that pray are trying to influence God's will.

Tell me that you think Christians are complete morons when it comes to prayer...if you think that, if you don't mind.
I don't think that, and I do mind. I accept Christians (and Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) as individuals with their own set of beliefs. I respect them and their faiths. What I can't respect is someone like you that has to resort to personal aggression to support his position.

...Then I can have one less person to respond to.

...so I can weed you out of the group of people in this thread.
Nice evasion manoeuver. Now, please go and talk with the millions of Pat Robertson's and Benny Hinn's followers, the thousands of people that at this moment are in hospitals praying for cures, and ask them why, as you said at the end of your original post, they are constantly "putting God to the test" by "expecting their prayers to work". Are you going to chastise them for being "bad" Christians that don't understand the "true" meaning of prayer the way you do?

Freethinker

13th July 2006, 11:51 AM

Perhaps God wants there to be serious and definite consequences to purposely chopping off someone's arm. If that person could pray to grow it back, that would negate the consequences.

Good enough! Then give us one example where someone who had a limb accidentally cut off had it restored. Nothing?

When you have to go to such great lengths and make so many dubious and outright laughable qualifications to explain something, it just makes it sound more ridiculous. Kind of like the dead parrot sketch.

elliotfc

13th July 2006, 12:13 PM

I do not believe that most Christians feel this way about prayer. Listen to a survivor of a scary situation and if he is a Christian, it is likely he will say that he was saved because he prayed. The clear statement is that if he had not prayed, he would not have been saved.

I can't remember if I've already replied to this post...but I don't think I have.

Christians don't expect every petition to be granted. Really. Really really really. Those that are granted, they are happy to credit to God answering a prayer. We believe that all good comes from God, and we do credit all of our successes to God.

What you think is a clear inferential statement I would reject, because it limits God's power. God is omnipotent (or at least that's what y'all keep telling me ad naseum). God can do something if we pray, if we don't pray, if we sort of pray, if we think about praying, if we might be praying or might be doing something else, etc.

I'd say that the Christian is witnessing to God's power when he credits prayer for a happy result. A polite thing to do, a tip of the cap.

BTW, Christians also credit God for happy results when they *didn't pray* for that result.

And indeed, what is the point of prayer if it is nothing more than to give God credit? If it's all God's doing, then He knows it. Do you really think God requires praise in order to do what he does?

Christians call it witnessing.

No, I believe that people pray to God with at least some expectations, even if that expectation is only that He will guide them.

Yes, we do expect that God will always *answer* our prayer. That could come as guidance, fortitude, etc.

And a lot of times, they have much greater expectations. My father-in-law who is receiving hospice care in our home, recieves two or three cards a day called "Prayergrams" from a Baptist church where his niece worships. These cards are specifically labeled "Intercessory Prayer". Now I ask you, what could an intercessory prayer (http://www.dianedew.com/interces.html)be other than a request/hope/wish for God to intercede?

An intercessory prayer is an intercessory prayer. Of course it's asking for God's intercession. There's nothing wrong in asking.

Sure, they will take "no" as an answer, as the saying goes, but it is quite clear that they are asking.

I agree.

I think, Elliot, that you are probably one of the only people who prays to God with absolutely no expectations of evidence that your prayer was heard.

By evidence you mean result? Of course, I have faith that my prayer is heard. No, I don't need an expected or assumed result to validate that faith.

-Elliot

Bri

13th July 2006, 12:30 PM

Good enough! Then give us one example where someone who had a limb accidentally cut off had it restored. Nothing?

I was asked what possible reason there might be, so I was attempting to oblige. The truth is that if God exists, we might not be able to know the reason even if there is one.

Therefore, I don't really wish to discuss whether my off-the-cuff reason was good enough. That said, by your reasoning one ought to be able to grow additional limbs by praying for it, so one could have three or more arms, for example. So even if one were to have a limb severed by another person on purpose, one should still be able to pray for an additional one (or two, or three) afterwards, which might defeat the reason I gave (or not).

Or perhaps it is any number of other reasons one might come up with. How about the possibility that God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists?

When you have to go to such great lengths and make so many dubious and outright laughable qualifications to explain something, it just makes it sound more ridiculous. Kind of like the dead parrot sketch.

There's no need for a Christian to make any qualification other than "God works in mysterious ways." No explanation necessary at all.

-Bri

elliotfc

13th July 2006, 12:39 PM

Nice straw man. Now, please do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth.

I qualified each and everyone of them, and asked you if they applied to you. Thanks for your response.

I'm glad you don't think Christians are out of their minds btw.

Your words, not mine. And yet you claim to embody the true understanding of what goes on in every Christian's head.

Not every Christian. I think most Christians understand quite well that God will not answer every prayer in the way that we would have him answer each of our prayers. Do you think I'm wrong on this? Do you think that most Christians expect God to answer each of our prayers in the way that we would have them answer them?

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here: People pray so God's will be done.

People ask for things, specific things, in prayer, with the understanding that if God wills it to be done, it will be done. That's what I'm trying to say, yes.

But people don't detach God from the prayer situation. You said people pray so God's will be done. In this case, God can't detach himself.

If I'm following you...no, God will listen to all of our prayers. I may not be following you.

You said people pray so God's will be done. What happens if they don't pray?

We believe that people who pray are open to God's grace in a way that people who don't pray are not.

If praying makes a difference in the end result, then people that pray are trying to influence God's will.

Praying makes a difference in ourselves. I think the results are independent of that...sort of. Or, they could be indirectly dependent.

Sure, some people pray with the intent to get God to see their way of thinking, to make God's will submit to their own. But of course they understand, even in doing so, that God's will is indiependent of our own. If they really believed that God's will was contingent on our own...but I've already gone through that point.

I don't think that, and I do mind. I accept Christians (and Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) as individuals with their own set of beliefs. I respect them and their faiths. What I can't respect is someone like you that has to resort to personal aggression to support his position.

No problem, this point is not relevant to me, but I'm OK with the fact that it matters to you. Thanks I guess.

Nice evasion manoeuver. Now, please go and talk with the millions of Pat Robertson's and Benny Hinn's followers, the thousands of people that at this moment are in hospitals praying for cures, and ask them why, as you said at the end of your original post, they are constantly "putting God to the test" by "expecting their prayers to work".

They are putting God to the test because they want something specific from God. I think that's the right answer, and I don't feel like going out of my way to verify that. Maybe I'll check out a Benny Hinn forum and ask.

Are you going to chastise them for being "bad" Christians that don't understand the "true" meaning of prayer the way you do?

No, I wouldn't call them bad Christians.

As far as chastising them...maybe. Maybe I would. I'm not sure, it would depend on the specific situation, how well I knew them, and all that.

As for the true meaning of prayer, I think they already know the true meaning of prayer, but pray for a specific result in spite of that. Pain and concern for a loved one can often override something that you'd have in place, securely, absent of the precarious situation. If I get diagnosed with brain cancer tomorrow, let's go ahead and assume that I would do something similar (even though I don't think I'd go see Benny Hinn). I don't think it would make me a bad Christian, but I'd have no problem with being chastised, as I'd see that as a good way to keep myself level-headed, me not being the center of the universe and all that.

Edited to add: there's nothing wrong with asking God to do something for you. There's nothing wrong with praying for a loved one to be healed. Jesus made a specific request in the garden when he prayed to God. It would be wrong to think that we could be exempt from death and suffering simply because we prayed for God to take it way.

-Elliot

Freethinker

13th July 2006, 12:55 PM

There's no need for a Christian to make any qualification other than "God works in mysterious ways." No explanation necessary at all.

-Bri

The reason there's no need for any other qualification is because that is the mother of all cop-outs. Translated it usually means "This crap doesn't make the least bit of sense to me either, and I can't find the least bit of logic to refute your criticisms, so I'm just going to stop thinking about it."

Bri

13th July 2006, 01:07 PM

The reason there's no need for any other qualification is because that is the mother of all cop-outs. Translated it usually means "This crap doesn't make the least bit of sense to me either, and I can't find the least bit of logic to refute your criticisms, so I'm just going to stop thinking about it."

Perhaps, although I imagine that to a Christian it simply means that any attempt at coming up with a reason would only be guessing, and it is possible that we might never know or be able to understand God's reason if there is one.

That said, I've provided several possible reasons that if God exists, he might heal some ailments but not regrow an amputee's arm, particularly the possibility that God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists.

-Bri

RandFan

13th July 2006, 05:49 PM

Before I answer, keep in mind that because you cannot answer "why" doesn't mean that it isn't possible that God heals only certain afflictions and not others. Yes Bri, that IS the point. It is possible that there is a God who choses not to answer certain prayers. That's a problem.

That said, I can think of a number of reasons that would likely be acceptable to Christians. Perhaps God wants there to be serious and definite consequences to purposely chopping off someone's arm. If that person could pray to grow it back, that would negate the consequences. How about a child born without limbs (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/thalidomide/first_pic.jpg)? Why won't God heal them?

It is also possible that medicine only heals those afflictions that God wants healed. In other words, perhaps God works through natural means to achieve his goals. Perhaps God doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists (perhaps in order to ensure our ability to make free choices).Then how on earth do you know the difference? See, the problem is that there is nothing to distinguish miracles from extraordinary circumstances.

This raises the question, if I can't tell the difference between a miracle and an extraordinary circumstance then what is the point?

I'm not actually claiming anything here, other than that there are possible explanations. I want to thank you for saying so. I mean that sincerely. Unfortunately those explanations don't hold up. You must twist logic into a pretzel. Please pay close attention to what you are saying. God will only perform a miracle IF the miracle has non-miracle possibility.

Bri, that's not much of a miracle.

A better question is why does nobody except atheists interpret these passages in the way you're interpreting them? I cannot find a single reference on the Internet of a Christian who believes that God grants everything that is prayed for. I'm sorry Bri but no one has suggested that God grants every prayer. The claim, and please pay close attention, is that there are some prayers that God NEVER grants.

NEVER ≠ EVERY

Do you see the difference? We are not saying "every" prayer we are saying "never" some prayers.

I agree that to me the passage seems pretty straightforward (particularly taken out of the context of the rest of the Bible). Bri, I was a Christian for 20 years, I studied at seminary for 4 years. I was a full time Missionary for 2 years, I did not work or do anything else but proselytize. My missionary Bible is marked from front to back and contains many of my own footnotes. I have many volumes of books on the Bible and Bible study aids.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What "context of the rest of the Bible"?

You'd probably have to ask a Christian why they interpret the passage as they interpret it, but it is clear that few if any Christians interpret it the way you did.Google "all things are possible". Start reading the links. I think it is clear that they do interpret the way I do. I suspect however that you don't understand how I interpret it.

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 06:39 AM

Why you'll never be able to logically debate this issue with a devout believer...

If God answers my prayers: It's a miracle.

If God doesn't answer my prayers: It's God's will.

Is that inherently illogical? I don't think so. If it's reality, as we believe it is, then of course it's logical.

Illogical to some people? I guess so, maybe you can tell me why if you're interested, and not just say that it's illogical.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 06:44 AM

Interestingly one way of interpreting Catholic Doctrine is that the question posed "allowing someone to live forever yet die at the same time" could be answered by Mary's Ascension to heaven? (I've never thought of this before so feel free to rain on my parade!)

Mary's Assumption, we believe that she died, was buried, and was assumed into heaven sometime between her being placed in the tomb, and the time when her tomb was opened so her body could be moved.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 06:47 AM

When the miners were thought to be saved it was only by gods grace.

When all but one turned out to be dead god gets none of the blame.

Why the double standard?

We believe that God can, and sometimes does, intercede for us in a miraculous way, but we don't expect this to occur *at all times in response to every prayer*, and when God doesn't intercede in a miraculous way, we don't blame God, because of the reality, which we accept, of our existence. We believe that we are in exile, we are to suffer, we are to die, and that our deliverance from this exile is in Christ, and not in God's rescuing us from death every time we are faced with it in this life.

It's not a double standard by our way of thinking...and I doubt you can get around to our way of thinking, so I understand why you say it's a double standard in your way of thinking.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 06:55 AM

How do you distinguish that from not answering a question?

Mere faith. A scientific instrument couldn't do the trick.

Prayer and "God's blessings" was a major reason I became a deist and ultimately an atheist. All of the evidence pointed to the incontrovertible fact that either God didn't answer prayers or his answers were indistinguishable from God not answering prayers.

We have faith that if we are open to God's grace we can detect in ways that we may never have possibly have expected.

I haven't prayed in more than a decade and I could not honestly tell you how my life is demonstrably different. If my life had been different I would have gone back to praying. For the longest time after I left the church and stopped praying much of me wanted to believe, to go to church and to pray.

Exactly, this was my point. If there were demonstrable differences when it came to prayer, then everybody would pray, then everybody would have demonstrable differences, then there would be this huge snowball effect driven by the demonstrable fact that prayer leads to demonstrable differences, and then what? If you pray for God to eliminate the moon, the demonstrable effect of that would be the vanishing of the moon. The purpose of God is not to satisfy our desires for demonstrable differences.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:03 AM

Because he said he would, and he's infallible.

I don't believe that God ever said that he would do anything we want him to do, end of, no expection and no qualification.

His infallibility is *not contingent on us*! He is infallible, or was infallible, before there was *us*. When we, the contigent, came into being, his infallibility did not become dependent on what we ask him to achieve! When God does not do what we tell him to, he is fallible because he doesn't succumb to our will, and he is infallible in spite of anything we say.

If Satan asks God to cease to exist, and God doesn't do so, that what, God is fallible because he doesn't do what Satan asks of him? When Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, Jesus did not display his fallibility in not demonstrably exercising his power.

You've had the quotations of his perfect and inviolable word earlier in the threads. Why then does he have to resort to loopholes to get out of his own promise? Seems awfully cheap to me.

His promise, if you extend it without limit, would appear to be absurd, wouldn't it? But God cannot be absurd. Therefore, it is this *charge* of yours that is absurd. Or, that's how it seems to me.

[edit] What tight spots? The situations in which according to god's promise he would fulfill prayers but in which he didn't. You hardly have to dig to find such situations.

He will fulfill prayers in his own way, not in our way. We are not God, and God is not subject to our decrees.

I think I've said the above statements several times already, to no effect apparently, so I'll not respond to the several posts to follow on pages 2 and 3 where this is the appropriate answer. We just disagree then. You think that God promises to do anything we want him to, as if he is a mere tool of our will, and I completely reject such a preposterous claim. Our understanding of God enables us to understand how to frame such statements. They aren't there to completely obliterate our notions of the attributes of God.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:06 AM

How is this not a list of loopholes, excuses, escapes, evasions, and dodges...?

Call it what you want then. You want God to do anything people tell him to. I could give examples to demonstrate the absurdity of this...no wait, I already have. But you accept that. That's on you. Great. You can't understand why God won't...oh I dunno, turn the moon into a ball of pepperoni because some prays that. Why wouldn't God do that, you wonder, I mean, someone prayed for it! Accuse God of loopholes, et al., in the next one, and see where that gets you. Ask God why God didn't give us all eight arms because Joe in Cleveland Ohio prayed for that. Your judgments are meaningless to me, they have meaning to you, that's wonderful, I exit the circular discussion on this point.

-Elliot

Bri

14th July 2006, 07:11 AM

Yes Bri, that IS the point. It is possible that there is a God who choses not to answer certain prayers. That's a problem.

What problem is there if God chooses not to answer certain prayers? I don't see God answering prayers to make gold fall from the sky, or to grow a third arm, or any number of other things that people might pray for, but you don't seem especially disturbed by those things.

Look, I agree with most of your points, but I think you're overstating the strength of your case. There are only two possibilities: God doesn't exist, or God exists. If God doesn't exist, then only "problem" is that modern medicine only knows how to heal certain ailments, but not regrow amputated limbs. If God exists, then it is possible that he allows medicine to heal certain ailments, but not to regrow amputated limbs. As long as it is possible that God's actions are for the greater good (i.e. there is a reason even if we cannot understand it), then I don't see the "problem" for Christians.

How about a child born without limbs (http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/thalidomide/first_pic.jpg)? Why won't God heal them?

Again, I can list any number of reasons and we can argue back and forth about whether they are valid. But in the end, it could be a reason that we cannot understand since we're not omniscient. That might be unsettling, but it's completely in-line with Christian belief.

Then how on earth do you know the difference? See, the problem is that there is nothing to distinguish miracles from extraordinary circumstances.

This raises the question, if I can't tell the difference between a miracle and an extraordinary circumstance then what is the point?

What is the point of what?

I want to thank you for saying so. I mean that sincerely. Unfortunately those explanations don't hold up. You must twist logic into a pretzel. Please pay close attention to what you are saying. God will only perform a miracle IF the miracle has non-miracle possibility.

Bri, that's not much of a miracle.

Actually, I suggested the possibility that God uses nature to perform some or all miracles, perhaps in order to prevent us from knowing for certain of his existence. Of course, no explanation is necessary since Christians believe that we cannot fully understand why God does what God does. That said, there are plenty of possible explanations that can explain why not regrowing amputated limbs might be for the greater good.

It's only one possible explanation of course, but if true, it would be quite a miracle. If without God's intervention the medicine wouldn't work and the person wouldn't be healed, it seems like quite a miracle to me.

I'm sorry Bri but no one has suggested that God grants every prayer. The claim, and please pay close attention, is that there are some prayers that God NEVER grants.

NEVER ≠ EVERY

Do you see the difference? We are not saying "every" prayer we are saying "never" some prayers.

You acknowledge that God doesn't grant every prayer, but then you seem surprised that God doesn't grant certain categories of prayer. I'm not sure what the problem is unless you believe that God grants all prayers.

Bri, I was a Christian for 20 years, I studied at seminary for 4 years. I was a full time Missionary for 2 years, I did not work or do anything else but proselytize. My missionary Bible is marked from front to back and contains many of my own footnotes. I have many volumes of books on the Bible and Bible study aids.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What "context of the rest of the Bible"?

Google "all things are possible". Start reading the links. I think it is clear that they do interpret the way I do. I suspect however that you don't understand how I interpret it.

It is quite possible that I don't understand how you interpret it, and I apologize for supposing that I do understand how you're interpreting it. My point here is that you don't seem to have a problem with God not granting certain categories of prayer, such as gold falling from the sky or growing a third arm, as long as the possible reason seems obvious to you. When you were a Christian you likely didn't have a problem with God not answering certain types of prayers, since you probably had faith that God had a good reason for not doing so, even if the reason didn't seem obvious to you.

-Bri

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:12 AM

What is meant by ask and ye shall receive? Receive what?

Look closely at verse 11. If the father asks for his dying child to be spared and the child dies how is that consistent with the scripture?

What does God give? Ask and ye shall receive WHAT?

Look at verse 13.

"how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

He will give the HOLY SPIRIT.

Ask and *it* will be given. *What*? The Holy Spirit. Nice to ask me to look at verse 11. Look at verse 13...which ends the specific passage.

Edited to add...you can also check out John 15:7. If you abide in me.....There's a reason we have 4 gospels. ;)

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:15 AM

I went to a live miracle crusade and saw the anguished looks on the faces of the sick that didnt get heald. They expected miracles. They were outright promised miracles if they showed faith and "gave god his cake first". Meaning that if you give god everything and trust him to take care of you he will. Go ahead and drop the rent money in the bucket because you cant outgive Jesus.

Who promised these miracles? If you give God everything? Did they give to God, or the people making the promises? Did they trust in God, or in the people who they went to see?

If I pray to God, why do I need to see a person, like the people running the miracle crusade?

My distaste for such things may not be as great as yours, but it is quite large. Anyone who takes advantage of suffering people to profit is *not* acting in God's name, so why should God let himself be used by such people? Why should God grant miracles to people who use God to profit, like the persons who made money selling in front of the Temple?

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:17 AM

I would just like to know how one would distinguish your version of God answering prayers with God not answering prayers at all? It's a sincere question and I think it begs an answer.

Someone looking from the outside? I'm not sure. Prayer is a personal thing, between the individual and God. Graces given by God may not be detectable by an outsider. Or by the individual for that matter.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:20 AM

It doesn't take a god to do that. It takes YOU. If you believe in a god too, so be it. But extraordinary things are done by perfectly ordinary people every day. Let the scales fall from your eyes and see what's going on all around you, all the time. Some of it is quite extraordinary.

I don't think that fixing a flat tire is extraordinary.

Extraordinary things, to me, are things that basically never happen or can't be done.

Some people think that performing acts of kindness is extraordinary. Hell no! It's ordinary, so ordinary that every should and ought to do it. It's not beyond the ability of anyone to be kind to another.

That's just an example. I know the intent behind what you're saying...but it's a wee bit hippified. I think we are all *special*, I don't think we are all extraordinary. Billions of people. That's ordinary. There's nothing wrong with ordinary! Ordinary is great! Why knock ordinary by trumpeting extraordinary?

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:23 AM

You can't have it both ways. Either God is omnimax and can do anything (and will if entreated humbly enough) or God is just ignoring the prayers of the dying, the terminal, the tortured and the deformed ... as well as those of the blessed.

No, he can answer the prayer of every dying person. Yeah! Nobody dies anymore, because you pray and God will do what you want him to do! God is *contingent* on us! We are greater than God! He has no control to disobey us!

It's not the *ability* that's at question. Does God *have* to do whatever we want him to do? No, no, and no. That is independent of his ability.

Now, you've given some pretty straightforward things. Can God be illogical and do some other sorts of things? Can he make a person's skin color both white and black at the same time? Can God make 2+2 equal to every number in the infinitity of all rational and hell, let's throw in irrational numbers as well?

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:26 AM

@RandFan: *9_9* Well, it's so. People short-change themselves all the time, and I don't think that's good for the psyche. Miracles come from people, not gods.

So people can resurrect the dead?

Or, are you talking about things like showing a child how ride a bike a miracle? That's nice if that's what you're doing...but it takes the word miracle and castrates it completely. There are other words like "wonderful", "precious", "amazing", etc. that could get the job done.

-Elliot

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 07:27 AM

Heya Bri, keep up the great work! -Elliot

Bri

14th July 2006, 07:41 AM

Heya Bri, keep up the great work! -Elliot

Elliot, thank you. While I may not agree that Christianity is necessarily right, I think we do agree that it's not necessarily inconsistent.

-Bri

elliotfc

14th July 2006, 08:03 AM

Elliot, thank you. While I may not agree that Christianity is necessarily right, I think we do agree that it's not necessarily inconsistent.

-Bri

I think ceo is the same way. Neither of you are Christians. I don't know if ceo is a theist or an agnostic. I think he is a lawyer though, the fiend.

-Elliot

Meffy

14th July 2006, 08:11 AM

So people can resurrect the dead?
I should think so. Happens rather a lot these days. Think about it.

Also consider that medical miracles, engineering miracles, scientific miracles bring their own proof -- evidence. Near as I can tell, there's never been a reliably documented religious miracle.

[edit] What you see as "castration" (a nicely loaded word, isn't it?) I see from another angle. To me, miracles that have no evidence to back them up are weak, impotent, false, if you like you could even call them castrated. I'll stay with strong miracles, thank you, the ones that can be demonstrated to work.

RandFan

14th July 2006, 09:03 AM

What problem is there if God chooses not to answer certain prayers? I don't see God answering prayers to make gold fall from the sky, or to grow a third arm, or any number of other things that people might pray for, but you don't seem especially disturbed by those things. "Disturbed"? I'm not "disturbed". I think praying for gold to fall from the sky or to grow a third arm fall under the scripture. However there is clearly a distinction between children without arms and someone who would like a third arm, don't you agree?

There are only two possibilities: God doesn't exist, or God exists.Agreed.

If God exists, then it is possible that he allows medicine to heal certain ailments, but not to regrow amputated limbs. And here is the problem. Why? Why did it take thousands of years and scientific experimentation and trial and error to heal people? I don't see God anywhere in there. But assuming that god was involved, why is he so arbitrary at best and capricious at worst?

As long as it is possible that God's actions are for the greater good (i.e. there is a reason even if we cannot understand it), then I don't see the "problem" for Christians. This is just a cop out. ...for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. What was meant by "nothing shall be impossible unto you"?

Again, I can list any number of reasons and we can argue back and forth about whether they are valid. But in the end, it could be a reason that we cannot understand since we're not omniscient. That might be unsettling, but it's completely in-line with Christian belief. This is an abuse of logic. We have God, over and over declaring that "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible".

What does this mean? You say there is another interpretation, ok, then please provide for me that interpretation?

What is the point of what? Miracles. If I can't tell a miracles from statistical anomaly then what is the point of Miracles? Uri Geller says he can bend spoons with his mind and he provides a demonstration that appears that he can bend spoons with his mind. James Randi performs the same demonstration and it looks exactly the same but we know that Randi isn't using his mind.

What good is a miracle that has a prosaic explanation?

Why does God promise "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible" if that is not what he meant? How else should I interpret the scripture? You keep saying that there is another why to interpret "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible". If that is true then one ought to provide the other interpretation.

Actually, I suggested the possibility that God uses nature to perform some or all miracles, perhaps in order to prevent us from knowing for certain of his existence. Ok, but here is the problem, God said "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible". What good are naturally occurring miracles that would occur whether there was a God or there wasn't a God keeping in mind the promises made?

I'm not overstating my case. It really is logical to realize that there is a problem.

I took a course in statistics at the University. I came to understand that there always are, and always will be, anomalies. It is theoretically possible to survive falling from a plane without a parachute or any means of safety. If a person survives from a plane crash is that a miracle? Statistics says that we should expect such a thing every so many times a person falls out of a plane.

Of course, no explanation is necessary since Christians believe that we cannot fully understand why God does what God does. That said, there are plenty of possible explanations that can explain why not regrowing amputated limbs might be for the greater good. But that flies in the face of what we have been promised.

...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

...and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Please define "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible"?

It's only one possible explanation of course, but if true, it would be quite a miracle. If without God's intervention the medicine wouldn't work and the person wouldn't be healed, it seems like quite a miracle to me. Whose miracle? We know wow that medicine was developed. It is well documented. Medicine took centuries to get to where it is know. Scientists relied on the empirical method to get that medicine. Many people had to die before science was able to develop it. So why should God get the credit? No medicine is 100% perfect. Most if not all medicines carry risks and undesirable side effects.

You acknowledge that God doesn't grant every prayer, but then you seem surprised that God doesn't grant certain categories of prayer. I'm not sure what the problem is unless you believe that God grants all prayers.1.) God doesn't grant every prayer.
2.) Some types of prayer God never answers.

1 and 2 are not equivalent. In light of Scripture I could construct an argument for 1.

In light of scripture I can't construct and argument for 2.

RandFan

14th July 2006, 09:16 AM

What does God give? Ask and ye shall receive WHAT? Matthew 21:22 says, ...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Matthew 17:20 says, "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed ... and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Please explain the meaning of "all things ye shall receive" and "nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Bri

14th July 2006, 10:15 AM

"Disturbed"? I'm not "disturbed". I think praying for gold to fall from the sky or to grow a third arm fall under the scripture.

Perhaps, but they're not required by it.

However there is clearly a distinction between children without arms and someone who would like a third arm, don't you?

Sure, it is easier to imagine a reason why one category of prayer wouldn't be granted.

And here is the problem. Why? Why did it take thousands of years and scientific experimentation and trial and error to heal people? I don't see God anywhere in there. But assuming that god was involved, why is he so arbitrary at best and capricious at worst?

Again, you've got a valid point, just not one that most Christians would find especially compelling. Christians don't have to know the answer to "why" to believe.

This is just a cop out. What was meant by "nothing shall be impossible unto you"?

I doubt that Christians believe it impossible for God to regrow an amputated limb. It is possible that God may have done so without your ever knowing about it.

This is an abuse of logic. We have God, over and over declaring that "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible".

What does this mean? You say there is another interpretation, ok, then please provide for me that interpretation?

You can see why I thought that you were arguing that the scripture says that God will grant ALL prayers (or at least all categories of prayers). If you're not interpreting it in that way, you'll need to explain again what you're implying. If you are interpreting it that way, then it is clear that you're interpreting it in a manner that no Christian that I know of interprets it. You'd have to ask them specifically how they do interpret it (I believe elliotfc has already stated his interpretation).

Miracles. If I can't tell a miracles from statistical anomaly then what is the point of Miracles?

Perhaps the point isn't to impress you, but to accomplish whatever it is that is accomplished by the miracle.

Uri Geller says he can bend spoons with his mind and he provides a demonstration that appears that he can bend spoons with his mind. James Randi performs the same demonstration and it looks exactly the same but we know that Randi isn't using his mind.

If you're making a comparison between Randi's spoon-bending and a doctor's practice of medicine, I think you'll agree that they aren't equivalent. Randi may prove that spoons can be bent without God, but I'm not sure that medicine proves that all patients can be healed without God. It is possible that some (even all) patients are healed with God's help and would die without it. Even doctors have been known to make statements about medical miracles and patients' lives being in God's hands. Medicine is far from an exact science.

What good is a miracle that has a prosaic explanation?

Perhaps the "good" of the miracle is that it accomplished what it was meant to accomplish rather than making it clear to us that miracles exist.

Why does God promise "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible" if that is not what he meant? How else should I interpret the scripture? You keep saying that there is another why to interpret "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible". If that is true then one ought to provide the other interpretation.

How are you interpreting the scripture? Are you saying that you interpret the scripture to indicate that all categories of prayer are answered? It seems to indicate that all are possible (i.e. that it is not impossible for God to make gold fall from the sky), but that doesn't mean that all are answered.

Ok, but here is the problem, God said "All things...ye shall recieve" and that "Nothing shall be impossible". What good are naturally occurring miracles that would occur whether there was a God or there wasn't a God keeping in mind the promises made?

I'm still unclear as to exactly what promises you feel were made, but assuming there is a God, what evidence do you have that all people who have been healed of ailments would have been healed if there was no God?

I'm not overstating my case. It really is logical to realize that there is a problem.

I don't see a logical inconsistency in the Christian belief concerning prayer. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they are logically inconsistent either. I think Christianity has rather well covered its bases as far as prayer is concerned.

I took a course in statistics at the University. I came to understand that there always are, and always will be, anomalies. It is theoretically possible to survive falling from a plane without a parachute or any means of safety. If a person survives from a plane crash is that a miracle? Statistics says that we should expect such a thing every so many times a person falls out of a plane.

I couldn't say. If God intervened to make it happen (and it wouldn't have happened otherwise) then it was indeed a miracle. Being able to explain something as a statistical anomaly doesn't preclude the possibility that it's not.

But that flies in the face of what we have been promised.

What are you claiming we've been promised?

Please define "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible"?

I hesitate to put words in your mouth again, so please tell me what you think it means. I can say that few if any Christians take that passage to indicate that God will grant all prayers, nor that God will grant all categories of prayer in such a way that they could be documented so that you would recognize them as obvious miracles.

Who's miracle? We know wow that medicine was developed. It is well documented. Medicine took centuries to get to where it is know. Scientists relied on the empirical method to get that medicine. Many people had to die before science was able to develop it. So why should God get the credit? No medicine is 100% perfect. Most if not all medicines carry risks and undesirable side effects.

I simply said that if God is responsible for the successes of medicine (as at least some Christians undoubtedly believe), then it's not inconsistent to give God credit.

1.) God doesn't grant every prayer.
2.) Some types of prayer God never answers.

1 and 2 are not equivalent. In light of Scripture I could construct an argument for 1.

In light of scripture I can't construct and argument for 2.

I don't see anything in the scripture you've posted that would indicate that God must grant prayers asking for gold to fall from the sky. I also don't think you can prove that God has never regrown a limb.

-Bri

roger

14th July 2006, 10:40 AM

Hey Bri, if you give me your car and title to it, I'll grant you anything you ask in return. Any and all things. You just have to ask.

I'm sure you'll be happy when I respond that the $5 million you asked for is not covered in the above agreement, because it doesn't specifically mention money.

slingblade

14th July 2006, 10:43 AM

Bri, I don't know where you live, but someday, you simply must go to the rural south of the U.S. If you are there already, then I don't know how you have managed to miss this so far.

The red-faced, sweaty preacher stands before his congregation, his leather covered bible in one hand, a handkerchief in the other. He fixes you with his gaze; you are sure he is talking to you and only you. Organ music punctuates his speech:

"Brother and Sisters, does God answer prayer?"

Yes!

"Brothers and Sisters, does God answer only some prayers? Does God answer the prayers of....just the rich?"

NO!

"The prayers of....just the popular? (NO!) Just the old? (NO!) That's right! he answers the prayers....of...EVERYBODY!"

Praise the Lord!

"Who loves him and does his will. If you are lame--"
Yes!
"If you are halt--"
Yes!
"If you are discouraged--"
Yes!
"If you are weary--"
Yes!
"If you are sorely troubled--"
Amen, brother!
"If you are without a hope in this world....God....answers....prayer!"
Praise His Holy name!
"I say unto you--"
Yes, Lord!
"Whatsover ye ask in MY name--"
"Tell it, Preacher!"
"If ye have the faith of a mustard seed--"
Yes, Lord!"
"Ye shall say unto that mountain--"
"Amen!"
"BE YE REMOVED--"
"Removed, Lord!'
"And it shall be...removed!"
Amen!
"Whatsoever ye ask--"
Yes!
"In My name--"
Yes!
"Ye shall receive!"

Okay, it goes on and on like that. Now listen to that from the time you are an infant until you are an adult. And then try to figure out why it never seems to work like that.

We know better than to make sweeping generalizations, so we can't say all Christians believe this. But I know from being in it that many, many do believe it. And when the answer one seeks is not forthcoming from God, then the apologia comes out, because that is the only way to explain it.

Bri

14th July 2006, 11:01 AM

Bri

14th July 2006, 11:21 AM

Slingblade, you write beautifully and vividly, and if you're not already, you really should consider being a writer.

Bri, I don't know where you live, but someday, you simply must go to the rural south of the U.S. If you are there already, then I don't know how you have managed to miss this so far.

The red-faced, sweaty preacher stands before his congregation, his leather covered bible in one hand, a handkerchief in the other. He fixes you with his gaze; you are sure he is talking to you and only you. Organ music punctuates his speech:

I grew up in Atlanta, which isn't the rural south, but is close enough that I understand the type of person you're describing here.

"Brother and Sisters, does God answer prayer?"

Yes!

"Brothers and Sisters, does God answer only some prayers? Does God answer the prayers of....just the rich?"

NO!

"The prayers of....just the popular? (NO!) Just the old? (NO!) That's right! he answers the prayers....of...EVERYBODY!"

That is far from the argument being made in this thread. That God would grant prayers of rich and poor alike has little to do with the topic. Does God grant every prayer of the poor? Does God grant every prayer of the rich? I don't think even the preacher you describe would say so.

Praise the Lord!

"Who loves him and does his will. If you are lame--"
Yes!
"If you are halt--"
Yes!
"If you are discouraged--"
Yes!
"If you are weary--"
Yes!
"If you are sorely troubled--"
Amen, brother!
"If you are without a hope in this world....God....answers....prayer!"
Praise His Holy name!
"I say unto you--"
Yes, Lord!
"Whatsover ye ask in MY name--"
"Tell it, Preacher!"
"If ye have the faith of a mustard seed--"
Yes, Lord!"
"Ye shall say unto that mountain--"
"Amen!"
"BE YE REMOVED--"
"Removed, Lord!'
"And it shall be...removed!"
Amen!
"Whatsoever ye ask--"
Yes!
"In My name--"
Yes!
"Ye shall receive!"

Now you're getting a little closer, but I still don't think the rhetoric implies that God will make gold fall from the sky or will grow a third arm for anyone who asks him to. If anyone does, in fact, believe that then I can agree with you that it would be inconsistent with reality. I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth by saying that elliotfc doesn't believe that, nor does anyone I could find on the Internet (but if you have a link to someone who does, I'll readily agree that they're nuts).

Okay, it goes on and on like that. Now listen to that from the time you are an infant until you are an adult. And then try to figure out why it never seems to work like that.

We know better than to make sweeping generalizations, so we can't say all Christians believe this. But I know from being in it that many, many do believe it. And when the answer one seeks is not forthcoming from God, then the apologia comes out, because that is the only way to explain it.

The question of whether or not these are mainstream Christian beliefs notwithstanding, I'm not saying that Christian beliefs are right, nor even that they can't be harmful, just that they're not necessarily inconsistent. I acknowledge the possibility that the beliefs of some Christians are, in fact, inconsistent (and as I said, I'd readily agree with you that those who hold them are irrational).

However, there are many possible reasons that the Christian God might not grant the prayer of any amputee who asks to have his arm restored, but might grant the prayer of some cancer patients to be healed.

-Bri

ceo_esq

14th July 2006, 11:41 AM

Are you really now arguing that the scripture quoted indicates that God will answer any and all prayers?

And in the affirmative, no less?

RandFan

14th July 2006, 03:52 PM

Perhaps, but they're not required by it. I have no idea what this means.

Sure, it is easier to imagine a reason why one category of prayer wouldn't be granted. I'm not sure why it matters.

Again, you've got a valid point, just not one that most Christians would find especially compelling. Christians don't have to know the answer to "why" to believe. I don't doubt that Christians wouldn't find it compelling. I think that is the problem. Logic is fuzzy when it comes to scripture. It can be bent to mean anything you want it to. "Everything" becomes somethings and "nothing is impossible" is interpreted to mean "nothing is impossible that isn't impossible".

So my point is that there is a logical problem. A disconnect. One must avoid logic to interpret what God meant by "All things".

I doubt that Christians believe it impossible for God to regrow an amputated limb. It is possible that God may have done so without your ever knowing about it. To make this statement is to not understand the argument. This has been conceded. We only know that when it is put to the test, documented, God never heals that which is impossible to heal. So to say, "well it could have happened" is disingenuous.

You can see why I thought that you were arguing that the scripture says that God will grant ALL prayers (or at least all categories of prayers).I have no idea what you are saying. You are not making sense.

1.) You tell me that there is another possibility.
2.) I say no there isn't.
3.) I say demonstrate that other possibility.
4.) You say go ask a Christian.

This is not arguing in good faith.

If you're making a comparison between Randi's spoon-bending and a doctor's practice of medicine, I think you'll agree that they aren't equivalent. I'm trying to make a valid point. If I can't distinguish a miracle from a non miracle then what is the point of miracles?

I keep asking the question and you keep ducking it.

Perhaps the "good" of the miracle is that it accomplished what it was meant to accomplish rather than making it clear to us that miracles exist. Then why assume that there are miracles at all? If God is so arbitrary and he will never heal those who are are otherwise impossible to heal, and, I can't tell the difference between a miracle and a non miracle then what is the point?

How are you interpreting the scripture? Are you saying that you interpret the scripture to indicate that all categories of prayer are answered? It seems to indicate that all are possible (i.e. that it is not impossible for God to make gold fall from the sky), but that doesn't mean that all are answered. I'm sorry Bri but I really think you are being disingenuous. The language is unambiguous. Your Gold from the sky does not clarify anything. You are trying to find an absurd example but it doesn't wash.

Matthew 21:22 says, ...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Yeah, Gold falling from the sky falls under that scripture. If you ask in prayer believing that you will receive it you will receive it.

Question: Why not? Based on that scripture why would God not make gold rain down from the sky?

I'm still unclear as to exactly what promises you feel were made... I'm crystal clear.

"All things...ye shall receive"

"All things" is there something that you don't understand about "all things"? Now you can say that Christians don't believe all things means all things but to do so is to miss the point.

...but assuming there is a God, what evidence do you have that all people who have been healed of ailments would have been healed if there was no God? Why assume a God at all? That is the problem. You are starting from the position that there is a God.

1.) Not all people who are prayed for are healed.
2.) There is zero correlation between being prayed for and healing.

To answer your question, all empirical evidence points in the direction that there are no miraculous healing just conformation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

I don't see a logical inconsistency in the Christian belief concerning prayer. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they are logically inconsistent either. I think Christianity has rather well covered its bases as far as prayer is concerned. Not based on any logic. What is your reason to suppose this?

I couldn't say. If God intervened to make it happen (and it wouldn't have happened otherwise) then it was indeed a miracle. Being able to explain something as a statistical anomaly doesn't preclude the possibility that it's not. Please to cite a single event that God made happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise?

What are you claiming we've been promised?This is really frustrating. I'm beginning to think you are being obtuse.

Matthew 21:22 says, ...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Matthew 17:20 says, "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed ... nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Promises:
1.) All things ye shall receive.
2.) Nothing shall be impossible.

Bri, what about "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible" do you not get?

I hesitate to put words in your mouth again, so please tell me what you think it means. I can say that few if any Christians take that passage to indicate that God will grant all prayers, nor that God will grant all categories of prayer in such a way that they could be documented so that you would recognize them as obvious miracles. Non responsive. I will ask again.

Please define "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible"?

I simply said that if God is responsible for the successes of medicine (as at least some Christians undoubtedly believe), then it's not inconsistent to give God credit.

I don't see anything in the scripture you've posted that would indicate that God must grant prayers asking for gold to fall from the sky. Matthew 21:22 says, ...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

I beg to differ. You have yet to explain what was meant by "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible". If you can't then fine but why go on and on? I'm asking reasonable questions. Answer them or don't but let's skip with telling me that Christians have it all figured out.

I also don't think you can prove that God has never regrown a limb. I can't prove a negative. I can't prove that you can't fly by simply flapping your arms when no one is looking.

Here is the point, can you prove that God has regrown a limb?

allanb

15th July 2006, 01:13 AM

I simply said that if God is responsible for the successes of medicine (as at least some Christians undoubtedly believe), then it's not inconsistent to give God credit.No, but it's inconsistent to allow God responsibility for the successes and not for the failures.

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 05:39 AM

He (and his son) should do what (they) supposedly promised to do. Nothing more or less:

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

You had to leave out verse 13. Didn't you. Yes, yes you did.

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Verse 20, which you didn't include, says "in my name". When we ask for things that we want without considering God's will, we ask for those things in our own names.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

21:21, which you didn't include, says "and do not doubt".

If you really think that prayer is unconditional...that's on you. It is because of that belief that you think as you do, and I've done more than enough to answer these points, where isolated verses are established to put the lie to the Word of God, when prayer is talked about much more fully in the NT as a whole, where Christians understand what Christian prayer is all about.

There are enough biblical passages that clearly indicate that a nuanced approach to understanding Christian prayer is necessary.

Jesus prayed to God. You can *understand prayer* if you examine how he prayed to God. He qualified his requests with *if it be Your will*. THAT IS PRAYING IN GOD'S NAME.

Of course you haven't addressed my other points. What if God answers every prayer that could possibly be put to him? What if we prayed that Jesus was Satan? Of course you believe that God would make Jesus Satan. Utter nonsense. Clearly you are obstinate in wanting to take singular verses, make them into a sort of God, and apply that to God, when using a bit of reasoning makes this perfectly acceptable to me and other Christians.

There are plenty of others. The only requirement I can see in any of them is that the person praying should believe. "Believe what" is not specified. But you can cover the eventualities pretty easily:

I agree, this has to do with what you *can see*. I'm indicating the things that you are not seeing.

I'm praying to God, because I believe in God. That's one.
I believe God can give me what I ask for, because he's God. That's two.
I believe God will give me what I ask for, because he said he would, see above. That's three.

The NT says much more about prayer that simply the above.

So when I believe, and I ask for something over a period of decades and don't get it, and when I ask for different things and don't get them, either, what am I to think?

1. God lies.
2. I am asking for help from an imaginary being.

Yes, the being you've imagined, the being you has nothing to say about prayer except what you mention.

Now, you can make apologies for God, and you can invent all kinds of conditions. But the truth is, the promises are very simple, and have only one condition: belief. And yet time and again, the promises are not kept.

Put the Lord to the test all you want, you have that right.

I invent no conditions, I have provided the verses, I didn't create the verses.

-Elliot

Meffy

15th July 2006, 05:43 AM

Put the Lord to the test all you want, you have that right.
Big unspoken assumption here. It is impossible to put "the Lord" to the test until the existence of "the Lord" has been established. No proof has been given that "the Lord" exists, in fact the evidence is overwhelmingly against such existence.

So your statement above has no meaning as it stands. I recommend:

"Put the existence and, should it exist, the nature of the Lord to the test all you want, you have that right."

Having done so it looks to me as if the Lord isn't there or he's a very wicked Lord.

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 05:49 AM

God's Guarantee: And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. Matthew 21:22

Disclaimer: God reserves the right to answer your prayer with the answer he deems fit. God reserves the right of substitution. God reserves the right to substitute no answer for an answer because if you think about it "no" is an answer. Also if you pray for a puppy God has the right to substitute a lollipop given to you from your aunt in lieu of the puppy.

Yeah, God is omnipotnet. Or that's what y'all keep telling me.

Yeah. God does what God wants to do.

Yeah. God is not contingent on anyone else's will.

Bummer that we can't put God in a box and press the button and make God into our personal slave. I'm sorry for the people who want that, or who expect that, based on a selfish reading of the Bible. Why can't we be more powerful than God? I dunno...ask the people who keep bringing up God's omniscience.

And for the third or fourth time, you (and others) leave out verse 21. But cleraly that means nothing to you, so I'll stop saying that.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:02 AM

Can't remember if I addressed this one.

:confused:
This contradicts everything we see: faith healers, collective praying for the soldiers in Irak, prayers for the ill, etc. Christians pray because they expect results. Of course, when the results are favorable, it's God's miracle; when they aren't, God works in mysterious ways.

Yes, Christians have expectations when we pray. We also expect God's will to be done.

Ghost dances? Sunday mass is a the modern version.

Ghost dances were done for specific reasons. It was believed that the ritual would compel the Gods to bring dead warriors back, and to restore the wealth and prosperity of the tribes. Here's the thing. They didn't work. And the recognition that they didn't work made the practice limited to a number of decades, probably about 30 years in total.

I understand that an analogy can be made between any religious ritual and the Ghost Dance, but by greater point was that efficacy of ritual, when understood, can explain shelf life. Sunday Mass has been around for what, 1900 years maybe or something? No end in site. Now, you can understand that by understanding that we DO NOT expect God to do whatever we tell him to do, as the Native American tribes expected when they performed the Ghost Dance ritual. But I do grant you that you can also draw analogies between Sunday Mass and the Ghost Dance. But perhaps you can also see the point I am making here.

If we REALLY BELIEVED that God would do whatever we ask of him, if we only prayed, Sunday Mass would go the way of the Ghost Dance. But it hasn't, and it won't, so I say we don't accept the dogmatic imposition of prayer that you would have us accept.

The only difference with the tribal rituals is that Christianity is the dominant religion. If and when Christianity loses its top spot, its rituals will be seen as superstition.

The Ghost Dances didn't die because they were seen as superstition. They simply didn't work, *when they were expected to work*.

If we start talking about Catholicism, the examples multiply. I've seen pilgrims walk hundreds of miles to ask for special favors from God or the Virgin Mary. I've seen parents crawling on bloody knees up to a church, with their sick child in arms, begging for a miracle cure. I've heard endless rosaries in hospitals. And when the results are not what expected, they just try again, and again, and again, because the believe their prayers weren't good enough. These are the ghost dances of our times.

Right, they keep trying. What's wrong with trying? There's nothing wrong with praying, and obviously their understanding of prayer is such that *unanswered prayers* do not determine that they will, at some point, stop praying (although a fraction of such people do just that). But with the Ghost Dance...the unanswered ritual did determine that *nobody* participated in that ritual after a number of years.

The more masses you can identify in multiple locales and variations, the more you prove my point. The *failure* of prayer, as you suggest, does not have the result you'd expect. Yes, a fraction of these people will reject their faith,. But since most do not, clearly they have an understanding about prayer that you do not seem to grasp, right?

Again, there's nothing wrong with asking God for something. If you accept that all be done according to God's will, you can pray your entire life and not lost faith in God. That's the caveat. You call that a cop-out. As long as you recognize it's there, call it what you want. That's the difference. If it's objective reality, calling it a cop-out is individual superfluity.

-Elliot

Bri

15th July 2006, 06:09 AM

No, but it's inconsistent to allow God responsibility for the successes and not for the failures.

I imagine that Christians might also give God responsibility for at least some "failures," particularly those where the person dies because of God's intervention, but otherwise would have lived. Of course, they don't consider them failures.

-Bri

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:12 AM

Eliot,

We do not ask that God answers ALL prayers (despite the biblical verses quoted above). Or even most. That's not the point of the amputee website.

Fair 'nuff.

The point the amputee website makes is that God never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever (ever) answers an amputee's prayers regarding amputation. Yet there are all kinds of claims that God answers prayers to cure cancer, save miners, etc.

Cancer is a terminal illness, and amputation is not. Saving miners is to rescue from death, and giving a limb is not a rescue from death.

Do most amputee's pray that God restores their limbs? I don't know. Do some? Probably.

Also, maybe God *has* answered their prayers, in his own way, as prosthetic limbs can take the place of a missing limb.

Christians believe that we *must* have faith to believe. If God made stacks of cash appear before our very eyes out of nothing, if he restored limbs basically out of thin air, if we snatched babies out of the middle of the road and levitated them to safety, this will contradict the necessity of faith to believe.

God *has* never, and I don't think he *will* ever, perform an undeniable miracle. That's part of the plan, that's why FAITH matters, because if he performed undeniable miracles (which is what the website is asking for), there is no reason for faith.

Now...why should faith matter? I think God will give the true answer, there are answers that we give which I won't get into right now (unless you want me to) because that might open a whole extra set of threads and I'm trying to stick to prayer here.

That website...it has two addresses. Why does God HATE amputees, and why won't God heal amputees. Interesting. A few things have popped into my head about that...but no need to psychologize the author of the site.

So, either God really hate amputees, or people are mistaken about God is answering prayers to cure cancer, etc.

I'm guessing you fall into the latter camp?

No, hopefully my response has added more to the dichotomy that you have tried to establish.

Good post though, really.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:21 AM

Well, this sounds like your opinion on the matter. Here are some links, from major and minor Christian sources, which take a different tack. This is why we are confused - major Christian sources claim that God answers prayers.

I could just keep linking, but that would be annoying to both of us, and you get the idea. None of these links claim that all prayers are answered, or that the answer is what we want, but that it sometimes work (for convuluted reasons that I don't personally buy).

Yet amputees never get their prayers answered. Weird, huh?

I clipped the links, there's no reason for them to appear twice in this thread. I'd say, I'd bet, that most of those types behind those sites will have no problem with at least most of my points.

Now. If amputees did get their prayers answered, we'd live in a *very very very* different world, don't you think? It would kinda change everything.

Also...if they did get their prayers answered...it wouldn't make much sense to *stop* there. So-called ugly people would get new faces...white kids who want to be black could get that done...my nose could get smaller without having to get surgery.

It's a really nifty, eye-catching example, amputees. But we won't stop there (how could we?). You're asking for miracles of a different species, that's why amputation is brought up. To reiterate, these sorts of miracles would make the skeptic say "well, I don't need faith now, I've got this!"

The amputee thing would probably, or certainly, win the Randi challenge. And what's the point of the Randi challenge? What's the point of skepticism? Faith as the ultimate anathema. But Christians believe that faith is a gift. I'm rambling a bit, I could probably make the point more directly, or maybe you can do that for me if you like, I think I know what I'm saying and I think I'm getting the point across. :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:22 AM

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:25 AM

Thanks Roger. Yes, this really is the salient point and it is easy to lose focus as to this point.

That which is otherwise impossible to heal without god is also impossible to heal with god.

Not impossible, because people keep telling me that God is omniscient.

Yes, there will be alternate explanations for God's miracles, and the miracle will then be accepted on faith, or rejected.

-Elliot

Meffy

15th July 2006, 06:29 AM

Yeah, God is omnipotnet. Or that's what y'all keep telling me.

Yeah. God does what God wants to do.

Yeah. God is not contingent on anyone else's will.
Is god contingent upon his own will? That is, having expressed his will, does he ever decide he was wrong and change his mind?

(Hint: Depends on which bits of the Bible you pick and which you decide to ignore.)

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:30 AM

Then why bother? If God is omnipotent, his will will be done, by definition.

Because *we* need to pray. People ought to pray. Here's a website, I think I'll just cut and paste it if y'all don't mind.

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-pray.html

Question: "Why pray? What is the point of prayer when God knows the future and is already in control of everything. If we cannot change God's mind, why should we pray?"

Answer: Why pray? Why pray when God is already in perfect control of everything? Why pray when God knows what we are going to ask before we ask it?

(1) Prayer is a form of serving God (Luke 2:36-38). We pray because God commands us to pray (Philippians 4:6-7).

(2) Prayer is exemplified for us by Christ and the early church (Mark 1:35; Acts 1:14; 2:42; 3:1; 4:23-31; 6:4; 13:1-3). If Jesus thought it was worthwhile to pray, we should also.

(3) God intends for prayer to be the means of obtaining His solutions in a number of situations:

a) Preparation for major decisions (Luke 6:12-13)

b) Overcoming demonic barriers in lives (Matthew 17:14-21)

c) The gathering of workers for the spiritual harvest (Luke 10:2)

d) The gaining of strength to overcome temptation (Matthew 26:41)

e) The means of strengthening others spiritually (Ephesians 6:18-19)

(4) We have God's promise that our prayers are not in vain, even if we don't receive specifically what we asked for (Matthew 6:6; Romans 8:26-27).

(5) He has promised that when we ask for things that are in accordance with His will, He will give us what we ask for (1 John 5:14-15).

Sometimes He delays His answers according to His wisdom and for our benefit. In these situations, we are to be diligent and persistent in prayer (Matthew 7:7; Luke 18:1-8). Prayer should not be seen as our means of getting God to do our will on earth, but rather as a means of getting God's will done on earth. God’s wisdom far exceeds our own.

In situations for which we do not know specifically what God's will is, prayer is a means of discerning God’s will. If Peter had not asked for Jesus to call for him to come out of the boat and onto the water, he would have missed that opportunity (Matthew 14:28-29). If the Syrian woman with the demon-influenced daughter had not prayed to Christ, her daughter would not have been made whole (Mark 7:26-30). If the blind man outside of Jericho would not have called out to Christ, he would have still been blind (Luke 18:35-43). God has said that often we go without because we do not ask (James 4:2). In one sense, prayer is like sharing the gospel with people. We do not know who will respond to the message of the gospel until we share it. It is the same with prayer: we will never see the results of answered prayer until we pray.

A lack of prayer demonstrates the a lack of faith and a lack of trust in God’s Word. We pray to demonstrate our faith in God, that He will do as He has promised in His Word, and will bless our lives abundantly more than we could ask or hope for (Ephesians 3:20). Prayer is our primary means of seeing God work in others' lives. Because it is our means of "plugging into" God's power, it is our means of defeating a foe and his army (Satan and his army) that we are powerless to overcome by ourselves. Therefore, may God find us often before His throne, for we have a High Priest in heaven who can identify with all that we go through (Hebrews 4:15-16). We have His promise that the fervent prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much (James 5:16-18). May God glorify His name in our lives as we believe in Him enough to come to Him often in prayer.

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:33 AM

And if he's omniscient he already knows the needs, wishes, and devotion of those who are supposed to pray, and if he's omnibenevolent he will do what those who are devoted need.

Meffy, I agree that God doesn't *need* us to pray. I also agree that he already knows our needs and wishes. As for devotion, prayer is a corrollary to devotion, in my opinion, so they go hand in hand.

Now, do we need to pray? I think so. I don't think anyone who has accepted Christ has ever done so by never praying once in their entire life.

-Elliot

Tricky

15th July 2006, 06:33 AM

Also, maybe God *has* answered their prayers, in his own way, as prosthetic limbs can take the place of a missing limb.
Hey, can I call 'em or what?
[typical Christian response] But don't you see? God HAS healed amputees. He has given us the wisdom to learn how to create artificial limbs, and in some cases, even reattach severed limbs, in His name. [/typical Christian response]

Meffy

15th July 2006, 06:34 AM

Regarding the copy-and-paste bit: None of this strikes me as the least bit convincing. It boils down to to "Yes, it's meaningless busywork, but you're to do it because daddy said so."

Meffy

15th July 2006, 06:35 AM

Hey, can I call 'em or what?
It's a miracle! Thank God that God invented and developed prosthetics! And good call.

[edit] Oh, God also invented all the medicines, therapies, instruments, and devices that those greedy scientists want to try to take credit for. Glory unto God!

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:36 AM

If indeed prayers are what Elliot says they are, then prayers make zero difference to God. Unless he just likes having his ego stroked. Somehow it seems like God should be above that kind of petty thing.

No, I think God cares. He cares about everything that we do. He cares enough, obviously, to tell us that we ought to pray, so they do make a difference to God. Not a difference as in our prayer changes God in some way. But it's an opening for God, who respects the state that we are in, the state of separation from himself.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:37 AM

Hey, can I call 'em or what?

arf arf arf obviously I'm behind. You're a smart one you are, ever thought about running for God?

I just threw it out there as a way to speak our against unbridled dogmatic assertion. That would make me a liar to some I think.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:39 AM

To which, I think, can only be added that if god's also infallible, there's nil room for error. So prayer shouldn't be necessary to begin with.

Ever.

'Luthon64

Sure. It's not neceesary it the sense that the universe will cease to exist, or God will blow up, if we don't pray.

Now, if we are created, or, we are in a state, where prayer is necessary for us, that's a different thing.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:40 AM

Nah, if you're all-powerful, you can just sit back and watch the violence and sordid sexual activities, and "tune in" on anything of particular interest. What a sick f***!

Or, it takes one to think that God operates like that.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:43 AM

No, this is just wrong. While I can't speak for everyone there are a number of posters here who are making a very important distinction that you are ignoring.

God's will is to NEVER heal those that otherwise can NEVER be healed.
or
God doesn't heal anyone.
or
There is no God.

There are only 3 possibilities.

No, he will heal us in the truest sense! Jesus is the way to healing, and we will be free from all suffering and ailment by accepting Jesus. No, it won't happen in our finite lifetime, it isn't instantaneous, any more or less than chemotherapy leads to instantaenous healing.

I'm sorry you have to be so dogmatic and limit possibilities, yes, it probably makes it easier to understand our theology.

God wants to heal all of us. In his own way. He has given us the way. But you are obsessed with the things of this world, so you have to be dogmatic and exclude our theology from your way of thinking.

You don't really expect me to accept your trichotomy, do you?

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 06:46 AM

I know you would rather ignore these questions but I'm going to keep asking in the vain hope that you will answer. If what you are saying is true then why all of the scriptures that contradict this position? By not answering you demonstrate that you are willing to be obtuse to protect your own world view. Fine but don't lecture us about nuance.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Please to explain this scripture? Why is it in the Bible? What does it mean?

1.) This is not God's meaning.
2.) This is God's meaning.
3.) Something else.

????

RandFan, perhaps you can exercise some charity here, I'm behind in this thread...and I think I've addressed these points on pages 3 and 4 of this thread. Have a nice weekend everyone.

Oh yeah, I guess the answer is a combination of 2 and 3. It is God's meaning, but the Christian understanding of prayer is fully understood by reading many other passages about prayer in the NT.

-Elliot

empeake

15th July 2006, 06:47 AM

The Ghost Dances didn't die because they were seen as superstition. They simply didn't work, *when they were expected to work*.
The Ghost Dances died because the people that practiced them were killed and subjugated by the Christians that saw them as pagans.

Tricky

15th July 2006, 06:50 AM

arf arf arf obviously I'm behind. You're a smart one you are, ever thought about running for God?
I dunno. How's the pay?

I just threw it out there as a way to speak our against unbridled dogmatic assertion. That would make me a liar to some I think. I doubt that (except among our most pugnacious posters). It does, I'm afraid, make you a tad predictable.

And that's the thing, really. Most of us here have dealt with Christians so much that there isn't too much new that they can surprise us with. Only the rarest of them will come flat out and say, "No, it doesn't make any sense and I don't require it to." About the closest we ever hear to that is "God works in mysterious ways".

Cancer is a terminal illness, and amputation is not. Saving miners is to rescue from death, and giving a limb is not a rescue from death.Careful, there. First of all, Cancer is not necessarily fatal, even without divine intervention. Even if it were, we all know that Christians claim God heals lots of non-fatal diseases, blindness, for example. (Actually, leprosy isn't necessarily fatal, but it severly limits your social life.)

Bri

15th July 2006, 06:58 AM

RandFan,

Your post uncharacteristically contains a lot of ad hominem attacks. I assure you that your suggestions that I am "disingenuous" and "not arguing in good faith" is entirely unfounded. Your suggestion that I am "obtuse" is a little harder to defend against. Given the fact that I've found your past posts to be quite respectful, I'm going to assume that to be a sign of miscommunication. Therefore, I'm not going to respond to your post point-by-point, but try to summarize what I think you've been saying, and what I've been saying. I'll then attempt to address one additional point that you made.

Unless I'm way off-base, you seem to be arguing that the Christian belief in prayer is inconsistent. The problem is that you have refused to define what you think that belief is, exactly. So responding to your argument(s) is a bit like trying to nail jello to a tree since you seem to be avoiding the question of how you're interpreting the scripture and then using my ignorance of your position against me. But really, your interpretation or my interpretation of scripture is irrelevant if we're talking about Christian belief. So let me go through the possibilities as I see them:

If you think the Christian belief is that God answers any and all prayers, then I agree that a Christian who believes that holds a belief that is inconsistent with reality. The problem, of course, is that I cannot find any evidence that there are Christians who actually believe that. But if there are, I fully admit they're nuts.

If you think the Christian belief is that God answers all categories of prayer, then that would mean that God must grant at least some prayers for gold falling out of the sky, absurd as it may be. Again, I'm not aware of any Christians who believe this. But even if they do, this is a defensable position, because it is possible that God in fact has made gold fall from the sky. So as long as the person believes there is a reason that such events haven't been documented (even if they don't know the reason and particularly if they believe that we cannot know the reason) then their position would be a consistent one. I have suggested that one possible reason might be that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Again, I'm not aware of any Christians who actually believe that God must grant prayers for gold falling out of the sky, so the point is probably moot.

Now, it seems to me that at least some Christians believe that God answers some prayers, but doesn't answer other prayers. This doesn't seems to be a necessarily inconsistent belief in that it might in fact reflect reality (particularly in conjunction with the idea that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence). Other Christians apparently believe as elliotfc has suggested -- that prayer serves a different purpose entirely.

Now, if you have a different idea of what Christians believe, then you'll have to spell it out more clearly, because for the life of me I cannot figure out what it is.

I'm trying to make a valid point. If I can't distinguish a miracle from a non miracle then what is the point of miracles?

I fully understand your point (and it's a very good one) -- now try to understand mine. The point of a miracle is not to allow you to distinguish it from a non-miracle. The point of a miracle is to accomplish whatever the miracle accomplishes. For example, if the miracle is to heal someone of an ailment, then the purpose of the miracle is to heal the ailment. That you cannot distinguish it from a non miracle is entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the miracle.

By the way, I will be out of town for most of the upcoming week, so if this thread is still alive when I return, I'll try to catch up and respond late next week. In the meantime, perhaps you can drag someone else (ceo_esq?) who is more knowledgable than I on Christianity into the fray.

-Bri

hammegk

15th July 2006, 07:06 AM

I find the link has many interesting ideas.

http://www.websyte.com/unity/now4.htm

If Zen had a prayer, perhaps it could be this:
"I snore so loud, I wake myself up!''

If you want to control the ego, give it a goal. Directing the ego is like driving a car -- you must be moving forward to change direction.

:)

empeake

15th July 2006, 07:17 AM

The Ghost Dances didn't die because they were seen as superstition. They simply didn't work, *when they were expected to work*.

...But with the Ghost Dance...the unanswered ritual did determine that *nobody* participated in that ritual after a number of years.
Asides from the fact that *nobody* was left to participate, who are to determine that they didn't work. After it, maybe it was their gods' will that the dead braves did not come back from the grave. After all, those gods behaved in mysterious ways.

My point is that, Bible references aside, every argument you use to explain the relationship between Christian prayer and the Christian God can be applied to the ghost dances of Native Americans, the gods of the Greeks and Romans, or any other deity that you choose.

And, by the way, ghost dances have not disappeared. The descendents of the few survivors that did not become Christians at gun point still practice them. Perhaps it was the will of their gods that it be this way.

Tricky

15th July 2006, 07:26 AM

If you want to control the ego, give it a goal. Directing the ego is like driving a car -- you must be moving forward to change direction.
That must explain why my wife can't parallel park.

Meffy

15th July 2006, 07:31 AM

Try it with a trailer attached. You can move backward and change direction, but it might not be the direction you thought.

RandFan

15th July 2006, 09:34 AM

Yeah, God is omnipotnet. Or that's what y'all keep telling me.

Yeah. God does what God wants to do.

Yeah. God is not contingent on anyone else's will.

Bummer that we can't put God in a box and press the button and make God into our personal slave. I'm sorry for the people who want that, or who expect that, based on a selfish reading of the Bible. Why can't we be more powerful than God? I dunno...ask the people who keep bringing up God's omniscience.

And for the third or fourth time, you (and others) leave out verse 21. But cleraly that means nothing to you, so I'll stop saying that.

-ElliotI wish you would address the question. Why does the Bible say "all things are possible" "and nothing shall be impossible"? There is a problem there that no one wants to address. You say you are answering questions but you are not. You are answering the question that you want to. So, if God is omnipotent then why is there a class of prayers that he won't answer?

RandFan

15th July 2006, 09:36 AM

Not impossible, because people keep telling me that God is omniscient.

Yes, there will be alternate explanations for God's miracles, and the miracle will then be accepted on faith, or rejected.

-ElliotThis is non responsive. I think you mean omnipotent. In any event, if God is omnipotent why will he not heal that which is otherwise impossible to heal?

Why will he ostensibly help someone play well in a sporting event but won't regrow a limb?

RandFan

15th July 2006, 09:39 AM

No, he will heal us in the truest sense! Jesus is the way to healing, and we will be free from all suffering and ailment by accepting Jesus. No, it won't happen in our finite lifetime, it isn't instantaneous, any more or less than chemotherapy leads to instantaenous healing.

I'm sorry you have to be so dogmatic and limit possibilities, yes, it probably makes it easier to understand our theology.

God wants to heal all of us. In his own way. He has given us the way. But you are obsessed with the things of this world, so you have to be dogmatic and exclude our theology from your way of thinking.

You don't really expect me to accept your trichotomy, do you?

-ElliotIt would be nice if you would answer the question. Why does God promise "all things" if he didn't mean all things? What did he mean?

Why does the bible promise that "nothing shall be impossible" if that is not what is meant?

hammegk

15th July 2006, 09:46 AM

That must explain why my wife can't parallel park.

Try it with a trailer attached. You can move backward and change direction, but it might not be the direction you thought.

Stick with christian bashing; if you're not careful some of the monkey poo you toss might soil you.

Meffy

15th July 2006, 10:00 AM

=9_9= Trust hammy to object to the most innocent, light-hearted of posts with foul-mouthed (and foul-spirited) non sequiturs and a blatant strawman. Well done, o "superior" one.

RandFan

15th July 2006, 10:57 AM

Your post uncharacteristically contains a lot of ad hominem attacks. I assure you that your suggestions that I am "disingenuous" and "not arguing in good faith" is entirely unfounded. Then I apologize.

Unless I'm way off-base, you seem to be arguing that the Christian belief in prayer is inconsistent. The problem is that you have refused to define what you think that belief is, exactly.Ok, lets first address "Christian belief". Christian belief is not monolithic. It would not be possible for me to tell you precisely what Christian belief is. I'm sure that there are many ways Christians justify and or rationalize their beliefs. I'm not arguing against the rationalization of those beliefs as you are arguing for them (at least it seems to me that you are). I'm arguing the irrationality of their tenets.

God is Omnipotent (God can do anything that is not logically impossible).
God has promised "All things" and that "nothing is impossible".

Look, if Christians believe 1 + 1 = 3 then there is nothing more that I can do but argue that 1 + 1 = 2.

You can argue that it is reasonable for Christians to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. Fine, but if you are going to do that then I think you need to logically demonstrate why it is reasonable for them to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. Or, you need to demonstrate that the logic of my argument is wrong and in fact Christians tenets are not irrational and that I'm unfairly representing Christian doctrine. I'll concede that is a possibility. Based on my 20+ years experience, training and missionary work I don't think so.

Bri, in the end I'm not really as interested in their beliefs but simply demonstrating that the tenets and scripture are not rational as they are applied to miracles. Under the umbrella of scripture let me add documented examples of miracles.

So, what are those tenets?

God is omnipotent.
God promised "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible".
According to Christians, God answers prayers and grants all sorts of mundane requests but more importantly God grants requests like healing the sick and the infirm.
In the past God, Christ, prophets, etc., routinely performed such miracles. (see plagues of Egypt; parting of the Red Sea; Joshua and the wall of Jericho; Elijah resurrecting a dead man; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego cast into a very hot fire and surviving; man living in the belly of a fish; water into wine; Christ raising the dead; Christ healing the blind, Christ walking on water; Christ calming the storm; Christ feeding five thousand with a fish and two loaves.Now, consider all of that and reconcile that with the fact that today, God never performs miracles that would otherwise be impossible.

If you think the Christian belief is that God answers any and all prayers... It's not my purpose to define exactly how or why Christians believe what they do. Only to show that their doctrine is not rational. Of course we can throw in a mysterious being whose will must not be questioned. But that is not a logical answer to the conundrum. A mysterious super being is simply Spackle to cover in the rough spots of belief.

If you think the Christian belief is that God answers all categories of prayer, then that would mean that God must grant at least some prayers for gold falling out of the sky, absurd as it may be. Again, without addressing specifically the logic of rationalization for their beliefs my argument goes to the tenets and scripture. If Christians pick and choose which scripture has meaning and what that meaning is then there is little I can do about that but to argue that the tenets and scripture are not rational.

I fully understand your point (and it's a very good one) -- now try to understand mine. The point of a miracle is not to allow you to distinguish it from a non-miracle. The point of a miracle is to accomplish whatever the miracle accomplishes. For example, if the miracle is to heal someone of an ailment, then the purpose of the miracle is to heal the ailment. That you cannot distinguish it from a non miracle is entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the miracle. So if a miracle is to make a can of soda come out of the soda machine when I feed it a dollar then that is a miracle? You are missing my point but I'll confess that I haven't been clear. If I can't distinguish a miracle from a non-miracle then why call anything a miracle? Why suppose that some super-being had anything to do with the so-called miracle?

hammegk

15th July 2006, 11:02 AM

Meffy

15th July 2006, 11:07 AM

More monkey poo.
No thanks. You've already supplied more than enough, and not much else lately.

Foul-mouthed? You live a very sheltered life, doncha?
No, I don't. By this ill-informed fillip of rhetoric did you mean to imply that your near-constant scatological references are somehow more acceptable because there are worse out there? I have to disagree.

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 11:36 AM

I wish you would address the question. Why does the Bible say "all things are possible" "and nothing shall be impossible"?

I did address your question.

It's not simply "all things are possible". It is WITH GOD all things are possible. Matthew 19:26, right? If you understand *all* of Jesus' words about prayer, you'll understand how *with God* is essential to understanding the issue.

You know, I have actually pointed out several verses meself. Now, I haven't taken your approach...being adamant about having you address the verses that I put forth. You actually haven't responded to any of the verses that I have submitted. I won't take your approach and do the "I wish you would address" schtick.

I *have* addressed the verses that you select. The Bible says that "with God" all things are possible. I understand that in a way that you apparently do not. We are with God, or we are not with God. When we ask for things that are not acceptable to God's will, we are not with God. That doesn't mean we are going to burn in hell. It simply means that God will not be put to the test by succumbing to our demands.

My understanding of Christian prayer embraces dozens of NT verses, and you are stuck on a handful. It's fine that you don't think I'm addressing this; but surely you can understand what's driving my rationales? Right? I understand what's driving your P.O.V., even though I disagree with it. You're stuck on clippings from verses (you can't even supply a whole sentence of a verse apparently, as you left out *with God*). I'm not stuck there.

Oh well! I guess you can reply by saying "I'm not addressing" your point! That'll learn me!

There is a problem there that no one wants to address. You say you are answering questions but you are not. You are answering the question that you want to. So, if God is omnipotent then why is there a class of prayers that he won't answer?

No, he *could* answer them.

Actually, he *does* answer them, not in the way you think he ought to.

You want instant gratification, a *do what I tell you* God. That's on you. There's enough NT verses I can supply to show why we should reject such notions...but you're stuck on a handful of clipped verses, and you've shown no desire to address the several verses I've offerred, so what's the point. Stick with the "I won't address" approach then. I agree that it's simpler and easier. Seeing verses in context, reading verses which follow verses, and considering other verses certainly makes things a bit more complex. But I don't know if you're interested in complexity. Again, this is on you, I am content with my answers. Keep banging your head against the wall that you think is me if you want.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 11:39 AM

This is non responsive. I think you mean omnipotent. In any event, if God is omnipotent why will he not heal that which is otherwise impossible to heal?

Because omnipotence is *not* dependent upon the omnipotent doing anything anybody tells him/her/it to do.

I've gone through this with others.

Let's assume you are a person with a modicum of physical strength.

Let's say I ask you to pick up a pebble from the street? Would you do that?

What if I asked you to pick up a child walking towards us. Would you do that?

What if I asked you to push the kid into the middle of traffic. Would you do that?

What if I asked you to pick up a suitcase sitting in someone's driveway and walk away with it. Would you do that?

And *if* you do none of those things, and if I were to say that you didn't do those things because you lacked the potency to do those things, would we agree that my complaint was totally daft?

Why will he ostensibly help someone play well in a sporting event but won't regrow a limb?

He will regrow limbs. We will all be resurrected.

Addressed! I have addressed your point! Your turn to tell me that I am not addressing your points. G'head.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 11:53 AM

It would be nice if you would answer the question. Why does God promise "all things" if he didn't mean all things? What did he mean?

He meant Christian prayer, not the kind of prayer that you are thinking of. You are thinking of prayer as if God was our servant who existed to serve each and every one of our desires and commands.

In Christian prayer, there is no such relationship. We pray in God's name, in Jesus' name, in the Lord's name, not in our name. When we pray in God's name, we submit to his will, and not to our own will.

We also believe that in Christ, all of our prayers of longing, petition, and anguish have been answered.

With a modicum of sense, we can understand that prayer *must* have limitations and safeguards. I've attempted to demonstrate this, but you haven't responded to such things. I won't beat you up about that btw, it's a tough one to respond to. I've also given you many verses where you can get a better understanding of Christian prayer, but you're not interested in that either, and I won't beat you up about that either, because if you were doing so you'd make this particular complaint unimportant. And I can see how it is important to you.

A couple Sundays ago at Mass, the 2nd reading was the reading where Paul prayed that a thorn in his side would be removed. Was it removed? No, it wasn't. Why wasn't it removed? It did not serve God's purpose, but it served Paul's purpose. This is the full understanding of Christian prayer. I accept that you are not interested in this. You are only interested in 5 or 6 words out of a verse in the Bible. Oh well! I can't force you to be interested in other things.

But I have truly addressed these points of yours. They have been addressed. Addressed. Please stop saying that I'm not addressing them. Addressed. I have addressed them.

Why does the bible promise that "nothing shall be impossible" if that is not what is meant?

It's meant in the context of Christian prayer, which you'd understand if you were interested in more than 5 words in the gospels, but I guess you ain't.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 11:57 AM

Asides from the fact that *nobody* was left to participate, who are to determine that they didn't work. After it, maybe it was their gods' will that the dead braves did not come back from the grave. After all, those gods behaved in mysterious ways.

Maybe you're right!

But there are extant Indians, and they ain't doing the Ghost Dance. Actually, some probably do it to get tourist money, but that's a different intent, and I think we agree that is not analogous to the intent behind Christian prayer.

My point is that, Bible references aside, every argument you use to explain the relationship between Christian prayer and the Christian God can be applied to the ghost dances of Native Americans, the gods of the Greeks and Romans, or any other deity that you choose.

Oh you are right. I made the distinction in limited ways. Again, they stopped doing the Ghost Dances. When the Christians were getting slaughtered, they didn't stop praying. They prayed even harder.

And, by the way, ghost dances have not disappeared. The descendents of the few survivors that did not become Christians at gun point still practice them. Perhaps it was the will of their gods that it be this way.

But surely not for the same reasons as before! Many Indians have *resurrected* traditions, I've learned way much about this after two semesters of Native American traditions, but they freely state that they do this as a way of honoring their ancestors and tradition and a way to galvanize and take pride in themeselves. For instance, the majority of Native Americans are Christianized (there is some mixing of religions), yet do perform rituals and dances and things, but not for the specific religious reasons of the past.

-Elliot

RandFan

15th July 2006, 12:04 PM

I did address your question. No, not in any meaningful way.

It's not simply "all things are possible". It is WITH GOD all things are possible. Matthew 19:26, right? If you understand *all* of Jesus' words about prayer, you'll understand how *with God* is essential to understanding the issue. I understand and accept that. So "with God" why will God not answer any prayer that would otherwise be impossible?

Matthew 21:22 says, ...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

According to this scripture, if a Christian believing that God will heal his or her child who is severely retarded and they believe will heal the child? If not why not?

You know, I have actually pointed out several verses meself. Now, I haven't taken your approach...being adamant about having you address the verses that I put forth. You actually haven't responded to any of the verses that I have submitted. I won't take your approach and do the "I wish you would address" schtick. I apologize, what verses?

I *have* addressed the verses that you select. The Bible says that "with God" all things are possible. I understand that in a way that you apparently do not. We are with God, or we are not with God. When we ask for things that are not acceptable to God's will, we are not with God. That doesn't mean we are going to burn in hell. It simply means that God will not be put to the test by succumbing to our demands. (see above)

My understanding of Christian prayer embraces dozens of NT verses, and you are stuck on a handful. It's fine that you don't think I'm addressing this; but surely you can understand what's driving my rationales? Right? I understand what's driving your P.O.V., even though I disagree with it. You're stuck on clippings from verses (you can't even supply a whole sentence of a verse apparently, as you left out *with God*). I'm not stuck there. I accept with God. I accept that God must perform the miracle and that it is God's will. Now answer the question, what is meant by "all things"?

Oh well! I guess you can reply by saying "I'm not addressing" your point! That'll learn me!No, it just means that you are refusing to address the point.

No, he *could* answer them.Then why doesn't he?

Actually, he *does* answer them, not in the way you think he ought to.But that is not what the scripture says.

Matthew 21:22 says, ...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

See, it doesn't say some things. It says ALL THINGS. I just want you to explain why it says "all things" if it doesn't mean "all things"?

You want instant gratification, z *do what I tell you* God.No! I don't want instant gratification. I want to understand why God performed miracles in the past such as healing the blind and resurrecting the dead and walking on water (Christ) etc. but today anything that is other wise impossible without God is impossible with God.

Let me repeat that. That which is impossible without God is impossible with God.

That's on you. There's enough NT verses I can supply to show why we should reject such notions...but you're stuck on a handful of clipped verses, and you've shown no desire to address the several verses I've offerred, so what's the point. Link to them and I will address them. Thank you.

Stick with the "I won't address" approach then. I agree that it's simpler and easier. Seeing verses in context, reading verses which follow verses, and considering other verses certainly makes things a bit more complex. But I don't know if you're interested in complexity. Again, this is on you, I am content with my answers. Keep banging your head against the wall that you think is me if you want. I don't want to bang my head, I want you to address the question. What verses? What context?

Tricky

15th July 2006, 12:13 PM

=9_9= Trust hammy to object to the most innocent, light-hearted of posts with foul-mouthed (and foul-spirited) non sequiturs and a blatant strawman. Well done, o "superior" one.
LOL. Thanks for jumping to my defense, o mephitic one, but Hammy and I have a long history. He's got places on his body where hair won't grow from the severe flaming he has received (Ian told me so, and he should know).

I welcome his feeble efforts at rejoinder. There is too little humor in the world.

RandFan

15th July 2006, 12:14 PM

Because omnipotence is *not* dependent upon the omnipotent doing anything anybody tells him/her/it to do. Conceded. I have conceded this from the start. However it does not address the problem. Why will God not otherwise do that which is impossible if he promised that he would do that which is otherwise impossible?

I've gone through this with others. That's nice.

Let's assume you are a person with a modicum of physical strength.

Let's say I ask you to pick up a pebble from the street? Would you do that?Sure.

What if I asked you to pick up a child walking towards us. Would you do that?Sure.

What if I asked you to push the kid into the middle of traffic. Would you do that? No, it goes against my morality.

What if I asked you to pick up a suitcase sitting in someone's driveway and walk away with it. Would you do that? No, it goes against my morality.

Are you saying that healing severely retarded children goes against God's morality? Why will god help aunt Martha find her glasses but not help heal a severely retarded child?

And *if* you do none of those things, and if I were to say that you didn't do those things because you lacked the potency to do those things, would we agree that my complaint was totally daft? ??? I don't have a clue what you are getting at here. I'm not talking about "potency" or God's ability. I'm talking about what DOES happen and if we can draw any conclusions from the facts?

He will regrow limbs. We will all be resurrected. Sure, you bet.

Addressed! I have addressed your point! Your turn to tell me that I am not addressing your points. G'head. What is meant by "all things"? What is meant by "nothing shall be impossible to you"?

You still have not explained what those statements mean.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Meffy

15th July 2006, 12:17 PM

@Tricky: Didn't figure either of us needed defending against such weak, predictable little sallies. :-D As John Dortmunder's so fond of sayin', "I'm only sayin'..." Agreed that they're good for a laugh. I do hope he gets over that unhealthy fixation soon.

[edit] I could try praying for it. Think that'd work?

Tricky

15th July 2006, 12:39 PM

@Meffy

The funny thing is, Hammy can be quite clever when he puts his mind to it. But he never seems happy. I think the picture of the bitter, wizened old man that he uses for an avatar, if not his actual picture, is an accurate depiction of his personality. No wonder us monkeys fling poo at it.

RandFan

15th July 2006, 12:46 PM

He meant Christian prayer, not the kind of prayer that you are thinking of. You are thinking of prayer as if God was our servant who existed to serve each and every one of our desires and commands. No. Please don't tell me what I think. I'm talking about Christian prayer. I'm talking about Christian doctrine.

God is omnipotent.
God promised "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible".
According to Christians, God answers prayers and grants all sorts of mundane requests but more importantly God grants requests like healing the sick and the infirm.
In the past God, Christ, prophets, etc., routinely performed such miracles. (see plagues of Egypt; parting of the Red Sea; Joshua and the wall of Jericho; Elijah resurrecting a dead man; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego cast into a very hot fire and surviving; man living in the belly of a fish; water into wine; Christ raising the dead; Christ healing the blind, Christ walking on water; Christ calming the storm; Christ feeding five thousand with a fish and two loaves.In Christian prayer, there is no such relationship. We pray in God's name, in Jesus' name, in the Lord's name, not in our name. When we pray in God's name, we submit to his will, and not to our own will. Questions:

1.) Do you believe that God is omnipotent?
2.) Do you believe that God performs miracles?
3.) Why, in contemporary times does God not perform any miracles that otherwise would be impossible?

We also believe that in Christ, all of our prayers of longing, petition, and anguish have been answered. But you believe that those answers are the same as if you hadn't asked in the first place, right? In other words, miracles are indistinguishable from non miracles.

With a modicum of sense, we can understand that prayer *must* have limitations and safeguards. Lifegazer uses the tilde "~". Is their significance to the asterisk?

Ok, let's assume this. Let's assume that prayer "must" have limitations and safeguards (whatever that means). Why not only heal *some* severely retarded people? Why not regrow only *some* limbs?

You see, your safeguards and limitations appear to be rationalization.

I've attempted to demonstrate this, but you haven't responded to such things. I won't beat you up about that btw, it's a tough one to respond to. Oh, well, thank you soooo much. I don't have a clue what you mean but thanks for not beating me up.

I've also given you many verses where you can get a better understanding of Christian prayer, but you're not interested in that either, and I won't beat you up about that either, because if you were doing so you'd make this particular complaint unimportant. And I can see how it is important to you. I don't see how any other verses can overcome the problems inherent with miracles and the fact that God only grants certain kinds of miracles and that miracles are only things that could otherwise happen without God even though in the past they did happen. But please, what verses?

A couple Sundays ago at Mass, the 2nd reading was the reading where Paul prayed that a thorn in his side would be removed. Was it removed? No, it wasn't. Why wasn't it removed? It did not serve God's purpose, but it served Paul's purpose. This is the full understanding of Christian prayer. I accept that you are not interested in this. You are only interested in 5 or 6 words out of a verse in the Bible. Oh well! I can't force you to be interested in other things. That would be fine if god would only heal some severely retarded children or only regrow some limbs.

The problem that you haven't addressed is why there are some things God will never do and why those things happen to be things that would otherwise be impossible without God.

But I have truly addressed these points of yours. They have been addressed. Addressed. Please stop saying that I'm not addressing them. Addressed. I have addressed them. You've responded. I'm sure that you feel that you have addressed them. Unfortunately a response isn't necessarily and answer.

It's meant in the context of Christian prayer, which you'd understand if you were interested in more than 5 words in the gospels, but I guess you ain't.As a missionary I taught people to pray. I taught the purpose of prayer and God's will. I related Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt".

I understand Christian prayer. That is not the problem. The problem is that there is an irreconcilable problem with prayer, miracles and promises made in the bible. That is what I'm talking about.

Meffy

15th July 2006, 01:05 PM

@Tricky: I ought not to tease. It's true. =9_9= Guess I'm an impractical non-cat. I have known some rather nice 'possums though. Anyway, pardon the sideshow, quick return to midway where all the action is.

slingblade

15th July 2006, 01:34 PM

Tricky

15th July 2006, 02:00 PM

That's T. S. Eliot. His life was measured out in coffee spoons.
He should have been a pair of ragged claws.

hammegk

15th July 2006, 02:19 PM

.... I do hope he gets over that unhealthy fixation soon.
The idea came from a member in good standing of the D'ratpack. Sorry, but it continues to seem apropos.

[edit] I could try praying for it. Think that'd work?
It might depend on the goal you're setting, and how well you work with appropriate current and future challenges and opportunities, mightn't it? :)

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 02:56 PM

The Gospel According to RandFan.

Chapter 1

One day, out of nowhere, Jesus appeared. There were some guys standing around. Then Jesus said the following. "Anything that you pray for will be done for you. Nothing that you ask for is impossible, and all things that you ask for will be done for you."

The guys standing around were speechless for a time.

One guy asked, "Is that everything? Do you have anything else to say? Are you for real?"

Another guy asked, "So, like let's say I prayed that everything that anybody else besides me prayed for would not be allowed to happen, would you answer that prayer?"

Jesus looked at the two guys who asked those questions. He had said all that needed to be said about prayer. There was nothing else to be said about prayer. They were failing to address his stated declaration of prayer in any meaningful way.

Then Jesus made like a tree and got out of there.

Thus concludes the Gospel According to RandFan.

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:03 PM

Big unspoken assumption here. It is impossible to put "the Lord" to the test until the existence of "the Lord" has been established.

Argh. We're speaking *as if God existed*, haven't you noticed? Why is RandFan giving me Bible verses about God? What's the point of that? Obviously we're assuming, in this discussion, that God does in fact exist.

Thanks for not being helpful at all!

Why stop there? Why not say "pray to God? You're assuming that God even exists. What's the point in discussing this?" But you didn't say that, and you have discussed this to some length. And now you're saying that we're assuming that God exists. Why did you enter this discussion in the first place if, eventually, you would have just played that card?

So your statement above has no meaning as it stands.

Nor do any of my statements, right? But this is the first time you've responded to my statements in this way.

I've got you marked down as wanting the existence of the Lord proven before we make any assumptions. Therefore, in this thread, it is pointless to talk theology with you, theology which assumes the existence of God.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:07 PM

I should think so. Happens rather a lot these days. Think about it.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

Also consider that medical miracles, engineering miracles, scientific miracles bring their own proof -- evidence. Near as I can tell, there's never been a reliably documented religious miracle.

The key word being "reliably", which is dependent upon the judgment of others.

[edit] What you see as "castration" (a nicely loaded word, isn't it?)...

Hey, it's medical, and it can be reversed I hear.

And I wouldn't call it loaded, unless you mean loaded with blanks. ;)

I see from another angle. To me, miracles that have no evidence to back them up are weak, impotent, false, if you like you could even call them castrated. I'll stay with strong miracles, thank you, the ones that can be demonstrated to work.

Yeah, maybe to you, but to the person benefitting...

Yes, of course you can stay with anything you want.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:09 PM

Is god contingent upon his own will?

They are the same.

That is, having expressed his will, does he ever decide he was wrong and change his mind?

No.

(Hint: Depends on which bits of the Bible you pick and which you decide to ignore.)

I'm into the NT, Christian that I am.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:11 PM

Regarding the copy-and-paste bit: None of this strikes me as the least bit convincing. It boils down to to "Yes, it's meaningless busywork, but you're to do it because daddy said so."

Yes, you can boil everything away (at least the material) until you're left with God, that's true.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:13 PM

It's a miracle! Thank God that God invented and developed prosthetics! And good call.

[edit] Oh, God also invented all the medicines, therapies, instruments, and devices that those greedy scientists want to try to take credit for. Glory unto God!

You've got the form down, I'll pray that you develop some sincerity. :P

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:16 PM

I dunno. How's the pay?

Not so good, not since they stopped burning the finest meats.

I doubt that (except among our most pugnacious posters). It does, I'm afraid, make you a tad predictable.

But that's good! If I was unpredictable, you'd suspect there was no logic or reason behind what I say, right? Or, like in science, what makes scientific statements and theories useful is their *predictability*.

And that's the thing, really. Most of us here have dealt with Christians so much that there isn't too much new that they can surprise us with.

And you ought to be skeptical of things that were new...

Only the rarest of them will come flat out and say, "No, it doesn't make any sense and I don't require it to." About the closest we ever hear to that is "God works in mysterious ways".

He does, or he doesn't, or he doesn't exist. If he does, there's no reason to fret about it or chalk it up to Sir Cop-Out. Unless there is, in which case you can fret and chalk for all of eternity.

Careful, there. First of all, Cancer is not necessarily fatal, even without divine intervention. Even if it were, we all know that Christians claim God heals lots of non-fatal diseases, blindness, for example. (Actually, leprosy isn't necessarily fatal, but it severly limits your social life.)

Aye.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:18 PM

By the way, I will be out of town for most of the upcoming week, so if this thread is still alive when I return, I'll try to catch up and respond late next week. In the meantime, perhaps you can drag someone else (ceo_esq?) who is more knowledgable than I on Christianity into the fray.

You out there Huntster? I'd like to tag out please. (TAG OUT not tap out you fiends)

-Elliot

RandFan

15th July 2006, 03:21 PM

Meffy

15th July 2006, 03:23 PM

@eliottfc: I've been teasing a little, but I'm sincere in not believing that there's any self-consistent justification for prayer. I do respect your right to your position though I disagree.

On the issue of NT versus OT, even there we run into self-contradictions. Sometimes -- even in the NT -- the Bible says the OT law is eternal, then other times it becomes optional.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

Likewise, there are parts of the Bible that say God can never (or does never) change his mind, and other parts that say he can/does. It's impossible to accept the whole thing as truth without believing two contradictory things simultaneously.

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:23 PM

Sorry, this won't wash. It's a strawman argument and does not at all represent what I am saying.

Sorry, this statement does not address my post in any meaningful way.

I'm feeling a bit giddy, and best stop posting for the night. Ta. -Elliot

RandFan

15th July 2006, 03:24 PM

You out there Huntster? I'd like to tag out please. (TAG OUT not tap out you fiends)

-ElliotWhat's the matter? Obfuscation isn't all that hard. You simply misrepresent your opponents views and refuse to respond in a reasonable fashion. Trust me, you're doing fine.

RandFan

15th July 2006, 03:25 PM

Sorry, this statement does not address my post in any meaningful way. What is there to respond to? I've made a logical argument and you are just acting silly. You have yet to address my points or answer my questions.

I guess the world will never know what "all things" means.

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:28 PM

I've been teasing a little, but I'm sincere in not believing that there's any self-consistent justification for prayer. I do respect your right to your position though I disagree.

On the issue of NT versus OT, even there we run into self-contradictions. Sometimes -- even in the NT -- the Bible says the OT law is eternal, then other times it becomes optional.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

Likewise, there are parts of the Bible that say God can never (or does never) change his mind, and other parts that say he can/does. It's impossible to accept the whole thing as truth without believing two contradictory things simultaneously.

I think God changes the way in which he deals with people, meaning, if people change, the way God deals with people can change.

As usual, Christians see this in a deeper (you'd say contorted) way than do you.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:29 PM

What is there to respond to? I've made a logical argument and you are just acting silly. You have yet to address my points or answer my questions.

I guess the world will never know what "all things" means.

If you're the world, I agree.

All things means all things. A baseball announcer can say that a player can do all things. In what context? In the context of the baseball diamond.

All things? In the context of Christian prayer? I understand it.

Again, I agree that you don't understand this. It's OK.

-Elliot

elliotfc

15th July 2006, 03:32 PM

What's the matter? Obfuscation isn't all that hard. You simply misrepresent your opponents views and refuse to respond in a reasonable fashion. Trust me, you're doing fine.

Yeah, and you think it's reasonable that God would do anything, anything we want, in the world with no qualification if we just pray for it. I've given examples of this. You've not responded. What if I prayed that only what I pray for God can do, but anything else that anybody else prayed for God must not do? Address that point! In a meaningful way! Do not refuse to respond! Keep it reasonable! Sort that one out!

You didn't have to tell me that I'm doing fine btw, I've known that for several posts now. :)

-Elliot

RandFan

15th July 2006, 03:33 PM

All things means all things. A baseball announcer can say that a player can do all things. In what context? In the context of the baseball diamond.

All things? In the context of Christian prayer? I understand it. We'll give me the context then? Why heal some people of cancer and never regrow limbs? Why help some people find lost items but never cure severly retarded children?

Again, I agree that you don't understand this. It's OK. It has nothing to do with understanding. It has to do with simple logic.

1.) Do you believe that God is omnipotent?
2.) Do you believe that God performs miracles?
3.) Why, in contemporary times does God not perform any miracles that otherwise would be impossible?

Meffy

15th July 2006, 03:37 PM

I think God changes the way in which he deals with people, meaning, if people change, the way God deals with people can change.
That's related to the question but off to one side. I still see inconsistencies aplenty in a book that's supposed to be 100% true.

As usual, Christians see this in a deeper (you'd say contorted) way than do you.
I might call it contorted, or distorted or inconsistent maybe. I don't think it's very deep though.

Anyway, you're bushed and I've stuff to do too. G'night.

RandFan

15th July 2006, 03:39 PM

Yeah, and you think it's reasonable that God would do anything, anything we want, in the world with no qualification if we just pray for it. This is not the subject of the discussion. It's just your strawman.

I would like to know why God never does that which otherwise would be impossible without God?

I've given examples of this. You've not responded. What if I prayed that only what I pray for God can do, but anything else that anybody else prayed for God must not do? Can God create a rock to big for God to lift? You are creating a paradox that is not relevant to the discussion.

Your example is not logically possible because the promise is not just to you but all people. If god granted your prayer he would have to deny other's their prayer. Remember, the premise is that God can do what is logically possible for God to do.

You didn't have to tell me that I'm doing fine btw, I've known that for several posts now. :) Yes, at obfuscating you are doing great. I'm not sure that is something to be proud of though. If it makes you happy then so be it.

empeake

15th July 2006, 04:05 PM

Oh you are right. I made the distinction in limited ways. Again, they stopped doing the Ghost Dances. When the Christians were getting slaughtered, they didn't stop praying. They prayed even harder.
And when the the Native Americans were being slaughtered, the didn't stop praying. They prayed even harder. Unfortunately for them, the bullets of the Christian God's will were more effective than their prayers. Perhaps it was the will of the Christian God that men, women, and children be murdered in His name? Or maybe it was the will of their gods that they be reunited with their ancestors to prosper in another life?

Trying to equate the mass extermination of Native Americans with the plight of Christians in Roman times is like comparing apples and porcupines (that's how different they are). The rise of Christianity was more of a sociopolitical movement (http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch23.htm). It seems that prayers are much more effective when the poor masses lose faith in their leaders and the Christians offer the promise of a better life, like it happened III century Rome. However, the prayers of the poor Christians and Catholics were answered differently in France in 1789, in Russia in 1917, and in Germany in 1939. Could it be because there was another group that opposed the ruling powers and offered the masses a better life, and the poor decided to support them? Of course not, it was God's will.

Also, using martyrdom to illustrate the power of prayer also applies to Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, Buddhists, etc. Are you going to argue that their prayers and rituals are also "ghost dances"?

Roboramma

15th July 2006, 05:35 PM

I would like to know why God never does that which otherwise would be impossible without God?

It seems pretty clear at this point that you're not going to get an answer to that question.

RandFan

15th July 2006, 05:40 PM

I would like to know why God never does that which otherwise would be impossible without God?
It seems pretty clear at this point that you're not going to get an answer to that question. I know.

http://www.vjforums.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif

hammegk

15th July 2006, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan :
I would like to know why God never does that which otherwise would be impossible without God?

It seems pretty clear at this point that you're not going to get an answer to that question.

Some would answer "Without god nothing is possible." ;)

simplemind2

16th July 2006, 12:19 PM

2. Given the above, it seems reasonable for God to *detach* himself from the whole prayer situation, dontcha think?

How do you explain John 14:12-14? In it Jesus says:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

The words "anyone" and "anything" and "I will do it" are clear and unambiguous.

slingblade

16th July 2006, 12:54 PM

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Must be 18 or older, void where prohibited by law, not applicable outside the Continental U.S. and Canada, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, some assembly required, APR 19.4%, tax, license, and dealer prep additional, go ask your mother, not before dinner.

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 04:06 AM

I understand and accept that. So "with God" why will God not answer any prayer that would otherwise be impossible?

First, I do not know that God has *never* answered any prayer that would otherwise be impossible.

Second, I think that Jesus is the ultimate answer for all of our prayers, and it would be impossible for us, on our own, to reconcile ourselves to God. Meaning God has, in fact, answered in the perfect way all of our ways, in a way that would otherwise be impossible.

Third, God does not exist to perform miracles to satisfy our demands. The state we are in, in which we suffer and we die, is a real consequence of our sin. Let's stop thinking about God as a genie in a bottle who will take away our suffering and pain in an instant. That would mean that all of our sin was without meaning, and that our sin doesn't separate us from God, when we believe that it does.

Fourth, "with God" means accepting God's will knowing the *why* that you ask for. I don't know exactly why the world operates as it is. God will answer this question to you better than I possibly could in the next one. I have faith in the whys, knowing that I can't articulate them to satisfy everyone, let alone myself.

Fifth, deriving reasons to reject God from a formula that directs us to be *with God* is fundamentally out of order for a Christian like myself. Understanding that I am to be with God, why would I be against God if he doesn't operate according to how I think he ought to operate?

Finally, if God did perform what we would agree to be the impossible with even a wee bit of frequency, faith would no longer be a stumbling block. Right? Faith, the greatest of anathemas to many, would remain the greatest of anathemas. People would posit that they do not accept God and Christ on faith, but on results. And result-oriented thinking is not the way to accepting God and Christ. Dozens of time Jesus told us to have faith...that our faith makes us whole...that our faith can save us. Your complaint would make all of this irrelevant. That would be helpful to you, on a personal level, but that is not the way as determined by the Lord.

Edited to add: also, if God did as you think he ought, the world would be very bizarre. People would pray that God turn all people into spiders or something. Spider Man doesn't count.

And another thing. *MAYBE SOMEBODY PRAYED THAT GOD SHOULD NOT ANSWER ANY PRAYERS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE IMPOSSIBLE*, and so he didn't and doesn't. Ever think of that? Arf arf.

-Elliot

Ossai

17th July 2006, 05:33 AM

Bri
Are you really now arguing that the scripture quoted indicates that God will answer any and all prayers? That is in fact what a substantial number of Christians believe. Why are you so sure that they’re wrong and you’re right?

elliotfc
Are you really now arguing that the scripture quoted indicates that God will answer any and all prayers? Funny that. Prayer ask god to suspend natural laws for the benefit of someone, usually the one doing the prayer, the ones that aren’t are done out of pity or for some other emotional reason.

Sunday Mass has been around for what, 1900 years maybe or something? That would be because it’s more social.

If we REALLY BELIEVED that God would do whatever we ask of him, if we only prayed, Sunday Mass would go the way of the Ghost Dance. I know of a few million people in South America that would disagree.

The Ghost Dances didn't die because they were seen as superstition. They simply didn't work, *when they were expected to work*. Prayer doesn’t either. People stick around for the religion for a number of reasons, social interaction, emotional support, desire not to admit they were wrong, peer pressure, fear, etc.

Yes, a fraction of these people will reject their faith,. But since most do not, clearly they have an understanding about prayer that you do not seem to grasp, right? They only understanding they have is that they’ve been taught TCA.

Also, maybe God *has* answered their prayers, in his own way, as prosthetic limbs can take the place of a missing limb. God doesn’t appear anywhere in the development of artificial limbs.

…this will contradict the necessity of faith to believe. By that logic, all answered prayers would negate faith.

God *has* never, and I don't think he *will* ever, perform an undeniable miracle. That's part of the plan, that's why FAITH matters, because if he performed undeniable miracles (which is what the website is asking for), there is no reason for faith. Walking on water, turning water to wine, rising someone from the dead, ascending to heaven, blighting a fig tree, raising from the dead, exorcism, curing disease – nope, no miracles reported there :rolleyes: .

Third, God does not exist to perform miracles to satisfy our demands. The state we are in, in which we suffer and we die, is a real consequence of our sin. Go to a large metropolitan city, visit the general hospital, go to the nursery and then make that statement. Those babies born with physical abnormalities, cancer, AIDS, addictions, etc. have really sinned haven’t they.

That would mean that all of our sin was without meaning, and that our sin doesn't separate us from God, when we believe that it does. Sin is defined by your god and is meaningless until you god has been at least proven to exist.

Fourth, "with God" means accepting God's will knowing the *why* that you ask for. I don't know exactly why the world operates as it is. God will answer this question to you better than I possibly could in the next one. I.e. god is going to do what he wants with or without you asking.

Ossai

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 06:03 AM

Matthew 21:22 says, ...all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

According to this scripture, if a Christian believing that God will heal his or her child who is severely retarded and they believe will heal the child? If not why not?

Well, we believe that we will all be healed, and made perfect, in Christ.

If a parent prays that God makes their severely retarded child better, there is nothing wrong with that, and also, maybe God will make that severely retarded child better, if that is his will. If it isn't his will, that doesn't mean that it isn't his will to help any of us, or them in particular. Rather, at this time, in our lifetimes, we are to suffer and experience the results of our sin.

If Christians believed that it was *oblivion* after we die, then your point would be brilliant, and I'd have nothing to say. But since I believe that Christ will make all of us whole, your why not doesn't completely register. It registers on a contingent basis (you believe in oblivion, therefore, there will be no healing for the retarded or whoever), but I can only understand that basis, while rejecting it.

Your turn to call this a cop-out. Then I will reply that you can call it Mikey if you want; if it's objectively true, labels are chosen coping mechanisms that can satisfy individually and be held eternally if desired.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 06:11 AM

I apologize, what verses?

I specifically provided them to slingblade, I might have combined both of you, my bad.

They're on page 4.

Also read the Lord's Prayer for a template on prayer. Also check the bit about Jesus telling us that we should not put him to the test. Check out Jesus praying in the garden before his crucifixion. This is if you want to understand how we think about Christian prayer. If you're interested in taking 2 or 3 verses and telling me ad nauseum that I'm not addressing them meaningfully, then you're not interested in Christian prayer, but in literalism without any perspective.

I accept with God. I accept that God must perform the miracle and that it is God's will. Now answer the question, what is meant by "all things"?

All things that are of God's will.

If we watch a baseball game, David Wright makes a great defensive play, Gary Cohen says "Wow, that kid can do everything!" and Keith Hernandez says "Yeah, that kid can do it all!", you'll sit there and say "what do they mean by all things", then I'll say, all things in the context of a baseball game, and then you'll say "you are not addressing my point" then I'll say "come on, stick to baseball, really, it makes sense" and then you'll keep asking the same question over and over and over again then I'll give up and go watch the game in another location.

THY WILL BE DONE. That is the scope in which all things is meant. I've answered the question. If you ask my again to answer the question, I will stop replying to your posts in this thread. Maybe that's what you want. Are you trying to test my patience by saying the same thing over and over and over again, while telling me that all of my answers and addressings of your question are meaningless? That's obnoxious.

-Elliot

Meffy

17th July 2006, 08:37 AM

If we watch a baseball game, David Wright makes a great defensive play, Gary Cohen says "Wow, that kid can do everything!" and Keith Hernandez says "Yeah, that kid can do it all!", you'll sit there and say "what do they mean by all things", then I'll say, all things in the context of a baseball game, and then you'll say "you are not addressing my point" then I'll say "come on, stick to baseball, really, it makes sense" and then you'll keep asking the same question over and over and over again then I'll give up and go watch the game in another location.
Um.

You aren't seriously suggesting we should hold the Bible's use of "all things" to the same loose standard you would a sportscaster's use of the same words, are you? If not, why bring this up? What exactly DO you mean to say by this passage?

Literal word of God, remember? God doesn't lie, remember? It's on paper.

Tricky

17th July 2006, 09:32 AM

Um.

You aren't seriously suggesting we should hold the Bible's use of "all things" to the same loose standard you would a sportscaster's use of the same words, are you? If not, why bring this up? What exactly DO you mean to say by this passage?

Literal word of God, remember? God doesn't lie, remember? It's on paper.
Actually, my mustilidaen friend, the bible occasionally admits that God does lie, or at the very least, approves of it.

2 Thes 2:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=2&verse=11&version=48&context=verse)
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

1 Kings 22:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kings%2022:22;&version=9;)
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

Ezek 14:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezek%2014:9;&version=9;)
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Its possible to find almost any characteristics of God that you like by reading the Bible, which surely explains why people who use the same book for reference can arrive at such vastly different moral conclusions.

Moochie

17th July 2006, 10:40 AM

S I G H...

Meffy

17th July 2006, 12:57 PM

Actually, my mustilidaen friend, the bible occasionally admits that God does lie, or at the very least, approves of it.
Well, just some parts of the Bible. In other parts he never lies and can't lie. I like to pick and choose the nice bits.

kurious_kathy

17th July 2006, 01:04 PM

Well, just some parts of the Bible. In other parts he never lies and can't lie. I like to pick and choose the nice bits.
That's just a big fat lie, God can not lie! He is Holy and until you guys understand that, then you will never come to know the God I love!

Ossai

17th July 2006, 01:06 PM

kurious_kathy
That's just a big fat lie, God can not lie! He is Holy and until you guys understand that, then you will never come to know the God I love!
Whew, at least you don’t love the god described in the bible. That one lies all the time.

grayman

17th July 2006, 01:07 PM

That's just a big fat lie, God can not lie! He is Holy and until you guys understand that, then you will never come to know the God I love!

And if God is a lie...?

Meffy

17th July 2006, 01:13 PM

That's just a big fat lie, God can not lie! He is Holy and until you guys understand that, then you will never come to know the God I love!
If 1) you believe that God wrote the Bible, and 2) the Bible contains many contradictions -- multiple statements of which at most one can be true -- which it does, then you must accept that God made statements that are not true. Making statements that are not true is called lying.

Tricky

17th July 2006, 01:51 PM

That's just a big fat lie, God can not lie!
Then you obviously haven't read your bible. I provided the verses for you. Look them up yourself.

Tricky

17th July 2006, 01:53 PM

If 1) you believe that God wrote the Bible, and 2) the Bible contains many contradictions -- multiple statements of which at most one can be true -- which it does, then you must accept that God made statements that are not true. Making statements that are not true is called lying.
Well, not always. It's only lying if you know they are not true. Making statements that are not true can also be called "being wrong". 'Course, I don't think Kathy will buy that one either.

slingblade

17th July 2006, 01:58 PM

Why do I hear circus music.......?

Meffy

17th July 2006, 02:10 PM

@sling: My spiritual ears hear... erm, boring local news. (Dateline: Church Hill, Richmond, Virginia, the hill with the church where Patrick Henry gave his "Give me liberty or give me death" speech. Project to pump out a tunnel that collapsed on a train in 1920, killing four, has been halted temporarily for fear the pumping will destabilize the ground and buildings above. AFAIK the cameras haven't seen anything interesting yet.)

@Tricky: It'd be a pretty big stretch. :-D

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 04:38 PM

Um.

You aren't seriously suggesting we should hold the Bible's use of "all things" to the same loose standard you would a sportscaster's use of the same words, are you? If not, why bring this up? What exactly DO you mean to say by this passage?

I've already answered this question. Several times.

The sportcaster's use is not loose. It makes perfect sense, if you watch baseball as much as I do. In fact, it is *tight*. If you watch baseball, it is way tight. If you follow the Mets like I do, you hear this said alot about David Wright, even Lastings Milledge while he was up. Nothing loose about it. If you think it's loose, I'm thinking you either/or don't watch baseball or don't watch the Mets.

Literal word of God, remember? God doesn't lie, remember? It's on paper.

Agreed. God does not lie. If you think that God is lying, feel free to hold that opinion for all of eternity.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 04:50 PM

That's just a big fat lie, God can not lie! He is Holy and until you guys understand that, then you will never come to know the God I love!

You got that right Kathy. They aren't interested in understanding, and they aren't interested in knowing the God that we love. It's clear what they are interested in. They are interested in putting God to the test. They can do that for all of eternity. Profit, like meaning, can have subjective worth.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 04:51 PM

And if God is a lie...?

You tell me.

I have an answer. Oblivion. What's your answer?

G'head, be skeptical til you die. If there's anything after that, you might want to make a list of excuses. Heck, you probably already have. Good luck with them!

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 04:53 PM

If 1) you believe that God wrote the Bible, and 2) the Bible contains many contradictions -- multiple statements of which at most one can be true -- which it does, then you must accept that God made statements that are not true. Making statements that are not true is called lying.

If God wrote the Bible, why are there four different gospels, and why are they said to be written according to four different people?

We understand that the Bible is inspired by God, and written by humans. If God wrote the Bible, as you posit, the gospels would be according to God, and not Matthew Mark Luke and John.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th July 2006, 04:55 PM

Why do I hear circus music.......?

Maybe the circus is in town? You should look into that, if you really don't know. Either there is an apparent objective reason for that, or, maybe you are hearing things, maybe too many circus visits have left some sort of imprint.

Or maybe you're being sarcastic. If so, hot diggedy!

-Elliot

grayman

17th July 2006, 05:05 PM

You tell me.

I have an answer. Oblivion. What's your answer?

G'head, be skeptical til you die. If there's anything after that, you might want to make a list of excuses. Heck, you probably already have. Good luck with them!

-Elliot

You tell me, if there is a God, would He look more favorable on a soul that led a good life purely out of fear of punishment, or a soul that led a good life purely out of the goodness in his heart?

And, if there is a God, why would he allow what is happening in the Middle East (I know, I know, he's testing us)?

empeake

17th July 2006, 05:40 PM

RandFan

17th July 2006, 06:51 PM

First, I do not know that God has *never* answered any prayer that would otherwise be impossible.

Second, I think that Jesus is the ultimate answer for all of our prayers, and it would be impossible for us, on our own, to reconcile ourselves to God. Meaning God has, in fact, answered in the perfect way all of our ways, in a way that would otherwise be impossible.

Third, God does not exist to perform miracles to satisfy our demands. The state we are in, in which we suffer and we die, is a real consequence of our sin. Let's stop thinking about God as a genie in a bottle who will take away our suffering and pain in an instant. That would mean that all of our sin was without meaning, and that our sin doesn't separate us from God, when we believe that it does.

Fourth, "with God" means accepting God's will knowing the *why* that you ask for. I don't know exactly why the world operates as it is. God will answer this question to you better than I possibly could in the next one. I have faith in the whys, knowing that I can't articulate them to satisfy everyone, let alone myself.

Fifth, deriving reasons to reject God from a formula that directs us to be *with God* is fundamentally out of order for a Christian like myself. Understanding that I am to be with God, why would I be against God if he doesn't operate according to how I think he ought to operate?

Finally, if God did perform what we would agree to be the impossible with even a wee bit of frequency, faith would no longer be a stumbling block. Right? Faith, the greatest of anathemas to many, would remain the greatest of anathemas. People would posit that they do not accept God and Christ on faith, but on results. And result-oriented thinking is not the way to accepting God and Christ. Dozens of time Jesus told us to have faith...that our faith makes us whole...that our faith can save us. Your complaint would make all of this irrelevant. That would be helpful to you, on a personal level, but that is not the way as determined by the Lord.

Edited to add: also, if God did as you think he ought, the world would be very bizarre. People would pray that God turn all people into spiders or something. Spider Man doesn't count.

And another thing. *MAYBE SOMEBODY PRAYED THAT GOD SHOULD NOT ANSWER ANY PRAYERS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE IMPOSSIBLE*, and so he didn't and doesn't. Ever think of that? Arf arf.

-Elliot Elliot, I don't have the time to give you an in-depth response. I appreciate your taking the time to respond and I'm sorry that I can't give your responses more attention because I think it unfair not to.

I would be happy to accept all of your arguments if you would put all things in the same basket. If you tell me that there is a God and our life and every thing that happens is a miracle then I can accept that.

However, if you believe that some good things are miracles and some good things are coincidence and I can't tell which is which then I truly don't understand the point of miracles.

I can't prove that God has never done that which is otherwise impossible. I only know that there is zero evidence that he has.

1.) Everything happens because that is the way God wants it to happen.
2.) Everything happens because of circumstance. From time to time there are statistical anomalies that some people declare as divine miracles. There is no way to verify that they are miracles since miracles are never something that can be documented to otherwise have been impossible.

I have no way to differentiate 1 & 2. None whatsoever.

ETA: I only skimmed over the other responses but I can assure you that I know the Lord's prayer by heart and I used it to teach prayer. In all honesty Elliot, I really was a missionary who taught the concepts you are talking about.

We're just not communicating as to prayer.

RandFan

Meffy

17th July 2006, 06:55 PM

If God wrote the Bible, why are there four different gospels, and why are they said to be written according to four different people?

We understand that the Bible is inspired by God, and written by humans. If God wrote the Bible, as you posit, the gospels would be according to God, and not Matthew Mark Luke and John.
I don't posit it, I ask for evidence supporting the traditional fundamentalist position that the Bible is the word of God and to be considered literally true. Verbatim. I don't support that view. I consider the Bible to be a library of loosely related mytho-histories, allegories, diplomatic (heh) letters, prophetic exercises, legends new and recycled in new clothes, erotica, and assorted novelties. I think it was inspired by people and written by people.

P.S.: I don't expect to experience eternity. I anticipate oblivion. I've never seen the slightest evidence to suggest anything else awaits after death. However, a point that seems to escape many believers -- I try to live my life ethically. More so than many people I see calling themselves Christians and thinking themselves bound for an eternity of delight in Heaven. If there's an afterlife and the real estate is doled out based on how "good" one has been, I won't be in the very worst of slums at least. But as I said, oblivion is what I expect.

Tricky

17th July 2006, 07:02 PM

You got that right Kathy. They aren't interested in understanding, and they aren't interested in knowing the God that we love. It's clear what they are interested in. They are interested in putting God to the test. They can do that for all of eternity. Profit, like meaning, can have subjective worth.

-Elliot
You are wrong, Elliot. It is quite clear from the verses I cited that the Bible indicates that God can lie if He feels, as most humans do at some point in life, like it is necessary to lie. Now it is up to the individual reader to determine the importance of these verses, but there is nothing ambiguous about them.

And yes, we are interested in putting God to the test. Testing is how one determines the truth of a thing. I would think that you would be interested in that. After all, if He passes the tests, you have a lot of new converts, right?

If you think the test is rigged, then show how it is rigged. But if one claims the Bible is the inspired word of God, then one should be able to defend that word.

elliotfc

18th July 2006, 05:05 AM

Then you obviously haven't read your bible. I provided the verses for you. Look them up yourself.

Answersingenesis speaks on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative11-13-2000.asp

We agree that the people behind answersingenesis are fundamentalists. Of the first order. Here is what Safarti says:

[The] sceptic typically sets up a straw man here in arguing that evangelicals believe that all Scripture was divinely dictated, with the human authors functioning as mere secretaries. Although some passages were indeed dictated, e.g. Ex. 20:1 ff. most were not. Rather, as the theologian Dr Ryrie states: ‘… inspiration is … God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.’ Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody, 1972), p. 38.

That's apart from the specific charge of God being a liar, which Safarti answers at the bottom of the page.

I figure I'd just provide the defense from the fundamentalist point of view, since every time I answer a question, people tell me that I don't answer the question or put up disemodied heads bopping against a brick wall.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th July 2006, 05:11 AM

You tell me, if there is a God, would He look more favorable on a soul that led a good life purely out of fear of punishment, or a soul that led a good life purely out of the goodness in his heart?

Jesus commanded us to *not* be afraid. People who do good out of fear, and only out of fear, are disobeying the commands of Christ.

Here is a comprehensive list of verses where we are commanded to *not* fear.

http://www.soulhunter.net/BP'S/nofear-collection.htm

A soul that led a good life purely out of the goodness in his heart, eh? And where does that goodness come from? Will such a soul credit all of his good works to himself? We do not *earn* salvation with God because of the goodness of our hearts. If that was the case, *there would be no need for Christ*.

And, if there is a God, why would he allow what is happening in the Middle East (I know, I know, he's testing us)?

For the same reason he allowed his Son to be executed. Suffering and death are consequences, his plan is to allow for these consequences, they are limited in scope and have been addressed in the way that God sees fit to address them.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th July 2006, 05:17 AM

Written by humans (dozens or hundreds of years after the fact, no less), edited by humans, translated over and over by humans, and interpreted by humans. However after 2,000 years of manipulation by imperfect humans, it still must be followed as the exact "word of God"? :confused:

If it must be followed as the exact "word of God", why isn't it?

Clearly nobody must follow the Bible as the exact word of God.

We call it the word of God because God is on every page of the Bible. We call it the word of God because we believe that he approached and connected and overwhelmed several men, whose stories can be found in the OT, in such remarkable ways that these men became mouthpieces for God, prophets, yet such prophets maintained their individual character and weaknesses and biases and even prejudices. Obviously the NT is concerned with Jesus and his message, so we call it the word of God. Also, we follow in the ages old Jewish tradition of calling the Bible the word of God.

By the way, which is the "true" version of the Bible? Why that particular one?

There is no perfect version of the Bible, nor does there need to be, in the same way that there is no perfect religion. We won't have perfection on this earth. We work with what we have, our hearts, if opened to the Holy Spirit, will help us in the search for truth.

The absence of a true version of the Bible, in my opinion, is not a good reason to reject, or exempt oneself, from accepting the truth within.

-Elliot

Tricky

18th July 2006, 05:25 AM

Answersingenesis speaks on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative11-13-2000.asp

We agree that the people behind answersingenesis are fundamentalists. Of the first order. Here is what Safarti says:

[The] sceptic typically sets up a straw man here in arguing that evangelicals believe that all Scripture was divinely dictated, with the human authors functioning as mere secretaries. Although some passages were indeed dictated, e.g. Ex. 20:1 ff. most were not. Rather, as the theologian Dr Ryrie states: ‘… inspiration is … God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.’ Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody, 1972), p. 38.

That's apart from the specific charge of God being a liar, which Safarti answers at the bottom of the page.

I figure I'd just provide the defense from the fundamentalist point of view, since every time I answer a question, people tell me that I don't answer the question or put up disemodied heads bopping against a brick wall.

-Elliot
I looked at that page, and I've never seen so much doubletalk in my life. It's not "mistranslated" it's told "using their own personalities". Then they go to great lengths to say how it has been mistranslated. Those people demanding that fundamentalists stand behind their biblical inerrancy claims are:

ignoring the original languages
selectively quoting areas of the KJV in which the archaic language can mislead
lack of logic, e.g. the correct definition of a contradiction
ignoring Jewish idioms and figures of speech
No, Elliot, in spite of all the circumlocutions thrown up by Bible defenders, God simply chose to mislead certain people as part of the "greater good". I'm not saying God (as depicted in the story) was wrong to do this, but lie He did. Now this shouldn't be a problem for folks like you who ascribe God very human characteristics like the ability to be sad. The Old Testement God is full of human traits, which somehow disappear or are muted in the NT.

Catholicism doesn't have a problem with this, as they have a system that allows the church to emphasize, de-emphasize or even ignore certain passages. Fundamentalists are stuck with just the one book.

Tricky

18th July 2006, 05:32 AM

Jesus commanded us to *not* be afraid. People who do good out of fear, and only out of fear, are disobeying the commands of Christ.

Here is a comprehensive list of verses where we are commanded to *not* fear.
And here is an example (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/mather/dut-chi.htm)of a well-known minister saying exactly the opposite:
But is this all? No; Lastly; All the Curse of God upon Undutiful Children hitherto, is but the Death, riding the Pale Horse in the Revelation; whereof 'tis said, Hell followed. I am after all to tell you, That the Vengeance of Eternal Fire, will be the portion of Undutiful Children after all; Children that cast Contempt upon their Parents, God will cast into the Vengeance of Eternal Fire at the Last, and into Everlasting Contempt.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifSurely, the Damned, are the Cursed of God! Hear, O Children; If you are the Children of Rebellion, the Curse of God will make you the Children of Perdition, throughout Eternal Ages.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifUndutiful Children, what are they, but the Children of Belial? This is as much as to say, they are the Children of Satan; and unto Satan they shall go. The Bible has call'd 'em, The Children of the Devil; And whither shall the Children of the Devil go, but into the Everlasting Fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels? The Fiends of Darkness, will be the Ravens, and the Eagles, that shall fasten their Talons, in the Eyes of those Children.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifWhen our Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of the World, foretells, that in the Day of Judgment, having said unto those on His Right Hand, Come ye Blessed, He will say unto those on His Left Hand, Depart, ye Cursed, into Everlasting Fire, with the Devil and his Angels; He seems to allude unto the action between Gerizzim and Ebal. Truly, the Children Damn'd of old, upon Mount Ebal, for Setting Light by their Father or their Mother, will be They, whom the Lord Jesus Christ, will one Day Doom, to Depart from Him into Everlasting Fire, with the Devil and his Angels. It was said, in Prov. 20:20 - Whoso curseth his Father, or his Mother, his Lamp shall be put out in Obscure Darkness.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifChildren, If by Undutifulness to your Parents, you incur the Curse of God, it won't be Long before you go down into Obscure Darkness, even, into Utter Darkness: God has Reserv'd for you the Blackness of Darkness forever.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifBe it known to you; that Undutifulness to your Parents, will bring you to feel many Stripes, from an Enrag'd Conscience in the World to come; for you know the Will of God; Your Undutifulness is a Sin against your Conscience.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifYea, be Dutiful to thy Parents, or expect all the formidable outpourings of an Infinite and Eternal Wrath upon they Soul.

elliotfc

18th July 2006, 05:51 AM

Elliot, I don't have the time to give you an in-depth response. I appreciate your taking the time to respond and I'm sorry that I can't give your responses more attention because I think it unfair not to.

No, you don't have to be sorry. You can even tell me that the quality of my response is such that it doesn't deserve a response in turn. I'm not saying you are saying that, clearly you're saying something different. I don't understand why you had to tell me, over and over again, that I wasn't answering your question. That's what's bugging me.

Does there exist a *perfect* answer to your question? I'd say...no. If there did exist a perfect answer...you wouldn't have had to ask the question. I don't expect you to be satisfied with my answers either. They are there, and of course I don't expect people to come around to my way of thinking because I provide answers. Yet I do provide answers.

My turn. My turn to bang my head against a wall.

Let's say that somebody prayed, 9,173 years ago, that for the rest of human time, God would *not* answer prayers that would do the impossible, from our perspective. If God answers that prayer, if God grants that prayer, is it legitimate for us to question why God doesn't do the impossible.

Is the above a speculative question? Yes. I'm trying to get y'all to understand the *raminfications* of "all things". What does it mean? And if it will just drive us bonkers if we try to get to the bottom of it, maybe there's a way of accepting the phrase that won't drive us bonkers!

I can come up with a few ideas.

1) REJECT THE VERSE COMPLETELY, AND THE BOOK WHICH CONTAINS IT. If you were to tell me, "come on bro, *all things* is just dumb, it's as dumb as the Bible, it's not worth my time" , I'd have nothing to say, and the point made is legitimately...blunt, at the very least.

2) ACCEPT THE VERSE IN AN ACCEPTABLE WAY. Clearly Jesus had an understanding of prayer which he demonstrated and shared with his disciples (what I keep calling Christian prayer). Clearly his closest followers didn't scratch their heads over the phrase "all things". Why not? I think it's because they understood what Christ meant by prayer without zeroing in on one line. Why didn't one of the apostles, right then and there, question Christ about the phrase? *They didn't need to*, anymore than I think that I need to. It's not an issue to us, as you think it *ought* to be. And why not? Because we accept the verse in an acceptable, and to us, a coherently comprehensive, way.

3) CONSIDER THE VERSE AN ABSOLUTE LIE. Jesus intentionally said it in order to deceive people, with the idea that many decent and sincere folks would take the verse and use it to pray for any and everything for their entire lives, resulting in miserable lives. If that was Jesus' intention, you may say that reality bears this out. How many Christians grieve over unanswered prayers? Jesus was a real bastard, that's a conclusion that can be drawn. I reject this, but I think this is also a decent position to hold, and there's only a limited number of things I can say to that in reply. Important things, but limited.

These are 3 possibilities. We could come up with more. Anything, please, then what you've been doing so far. Telling me that I'm not giving meaningful answers. If you think that meaning is subjective...limit that to saying "meaningful to me", because obviously it is meaningful to Christians in general. Or, have the ability to see that the answers could be meaningful to others.

I would be happy to accept all of your arguments if you would put all things in the same basket. If you tell me that there is a God and our life and every thing that happens is a miracle then I can accept that.

I think Meffy actually made a point like that...absent God of course.

It seems to me that miracle implies several things (rare occurence, extraordinary event, interventionary tactic) that makes it useful, as a word, in such a way that I wouldn't ever say that everything that happens is a miracle. Everything that happens is an *event*. There is already a word for "everything that happens".

However, if you believe that some good things are miracles and some good things are coincidence and I can't tell which is which then I truly don't understand the point of miracles.

You don't think that there can be multiple reasons for understand why good things happen? Also, if something happens, it *merely* happens. Rain is a good thing to the farmer who wants it, and a bad thing to the couple who want to take pictures outside after their wedding. But what happened? Rain happened. Is it a good thing? That's up to the person.

If God grants a miracle (rain) to the suffering farmer, and he ignores the prayer of the newlyweds for a sunny day...

Now, what is the point of miracles...I think it's to make an impression on individuals. I don't think the point of miracles is to be helpful when it comes to philosophical discernment, or outside observation. You're trying to *understand* miracles and why they happen, and you never will. Nor will the believers in miracles, but they aren't hung up about that.

I can't prove that God has never done that which is otherwise impossible. I only know that there is zero evidence that he has.

I'm so not agreeing with you when you say that there is zero evidence that he has performed miracles. Do you mean testable, scientific evidence? I'd agree with those qualifications...I think...

1.) Everything happens because that is the way God wants it to happen.

I disagree. I think *some* things happen beacuse God allows them to happen. Some things happen because God wants them to happen, and *allows* doesn't apply.

2.) Everything happens because of circumstance.

I don't think this applies to everything that God does. Maybe some things? I'm not sure.

From time to time there are statistical anomalies that some people declare as divine miracles. There is no way to verify that they are miracles since miracles are never something that can be documented to otherwise have been impossible.

I agree that if they were miracles, faith is the primary ingredient to accepting or identifying or recognizing that fact.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th July 2006, 06:02 AM

I don't posit it, I ask for evidence supporting the traditional fundamentalist position that the Bible is the word of God and to be considered literally true.

The evidence is the thing itself, along with individual discernment guided by the Holy Spirit. They accept that position on faith.

P.S.: I don't expect to experience eternity. I anticipate oblivion. I've never seen the slightest evidence to suggest anything else awaits after death. However, a point that seems to escape many believers -- I try to live my life ethically. More so than many people I see calling themselves Christians and thinking themselves bound for an eternity of delight in Heaven. If there's an afterlife and the real estate is doled out based on how "good" one has been, I won't be in the very worst of slums at least. But as I said, oblivion is what I expect.

I see your point.

Oblivion is the great equalizer. You try to live your life ethically, and you imply that others life their lives to get to heaven (I have no reason to doubt that is the case for many). Which ever way you try to live life, there is oblivion.

Now, if there's an afterlife, you seem to accept that *something* matters. You nominate ethics, God must *recognize* ethics in a way that makes ethics objective, and if there is a reward for ethics, everything is tied together in that way. Ethics...objective recognition of ethics...objective reward for ethics. It's all together. When Christians talk about heaven, I think they understand that it's all together. Let's take away heaven. Then we'd have ethics...objective recognition of ethics...and then...

If there is no reward, if those who are unethical are treated the same as those who are ethical, then what you have is the personal recognition that being ethical, and conforming to the objective standard of ethics, is the reward of itself. This is noble thinking. And since it's noble thinking...I think God would think in a similar way.

I think non-believers are hung up about Christians who talk about heaven. I don't see why it's a hang up. It kind of all goes together. It's like a person who trains to win a gold medal (hopefully without cheating or performance enhancers). Rewards drive all of us. You are going out with someone, and maybe you'll get engaged eventually. You do well at work and the fat raise is around the corner. You get a nobel peace prize.

Rewards *ought* to accompany our good deeds. When you're motivated by a reward, that is not a bad thing, as long as you recognize it they go hand in hand with good deeds.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th July 2006, 06:05 AM

You are wrong, Elliot. It is quite clear from the verses I cited that the Bible indicates that God can lie if He feels, as most humans do at some point in life, like it is necessary to lie. Now it is up to the individual reader to determine the importance of these verses, but there is nothing ambiguous about them.

I think that some of the Bible writers thought that God could lie, yeah.

I think there is a bit of ambiguity, but that's just me I guess.

And yes, we are interested in putting God to the test. Testing is how one determines the truth of a thing. I would think that you would be interested in that. After all, if He passes the tests, you have a lot of new converts, right?

I'm thinking about test in a different way, the way in which Satan tempted Christ in the desert, as opposed to people thinking about something. Prayer that is guided by the determination that God will do whatever we say simply because we tell him to do it is the comparison I was thinking about.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th July 2006, 06:10 AM

[/LIST]No, Elliot, in spite of all the circumlocutions thrown up by Bible defenders, God simply chose to mislead certain people as part of the "greater good".

I don't believe this, and if some Bible writers believed this I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Some people read the Word of God, btw, and *are deceived*. Does this mean that God lies? I think a person can hear God and be deceived by the way. I think that many people who confront God will be given it straight, and receive it bent. To me, that wouldn't make God a liar, although in a cause and effect way, you could say that God spoke and a person was deceived.

Catholicism doesn't have a problem with this, as they have a system that allows the church to emphasize, de-emphasize or even ignore certain passages. Fundamentalists are stuck with just the one book.

Safarti doesn't have a problem with it, but you have a probelm with the way in which Safarti doesn't have a problem with it.

-Elliot

Tricky

18th July 2006, 06:27 AM

I don't believe this, and if some Bible writers believed this I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Some people read the Word of God, btw, and *are deceived*. Does this mean that God lies? I think a person can hear God and be deceived by the way. I think that many people who confront God will be given it straight, and receive it bent. To me, that wouldn't make God a liar, although in a cause and effect way, you could say that God spoke and a person was deceived.I'm guessing God could choose to speak in a way that wouldn't be deceiving. Placing the blame on the deceived is like a criminal saying, "It's your fault for not catching me."

Safarti doesn't have a problem with it, but you have a probelm with the way in which Safarti doesn't have a problem with it. My problem is that Safarti contradicts himself (which is quite obviously not a problem for him). One cannot claim that the Bible is literally true (meaning "as written") and at the same time say it is a matter of translation and the personality of the transcribers. That is what I mean by doubletalk.

Meffy

18th July 2006, 07:04 AM

Rewards drive all of us.
All of us? Not I. If a reward comes, I won't mind. But I don't choose my behaviors or beliefs in order to earn a reward. Ambition is a foreign concept to me.

As for biblical literalism, I assure you I've had "discussions" with a great many self-identified fundamentalist Christians who believed every single word in the Bible was written by God, PERIOD. For years, one actually refused to accept that the Bible had not originally been written in English. I don't need a straw man when there are real ones walking around fervently believing this stuff.

Genesius

18th July 2006, 07:43 AM

You tell me.

I have an answer. Oblivion. What's your answer?

G'head, be skeptical til you die. If there's anything after that, you might want to make a list of excuses. Heck, you probably already have. Good luck with them!

-Elliot
I'll stick with Bertrand Russell on this one:

from http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_religion.html

In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell's ninetieth birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party, and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist. "What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you're wrong?" she asked. "I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?" Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue, and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say, 'God, you gave us insufficient evidence.'" Al Seckel, in Preface to Bertrand Russell on God and Religion

empeake

18th July 2006, 10:03 AM

Clearly nobody must follow the Bible as the exact word of God.
I agree. Now, can you please explain this to the Fundamentalists.

We call it the word of God because God is on every page of the Bible. We call it the word of God because we believe that he approached and connected and overwhelmed several men, whose stories can be found in the OT, in such remarkable ways that these men became mouthpieces for God, prophets, yet such prophets maintained their individual character and weaknesses and biases and even prejudices. Obviously the NT is concerned with Jesus and his message, so we call it the word of God. Also, we follow in the ages old Jewish tradition of calling the Bible the word of God.
Very convenient. The words in the Bible can be attributed directly to God, or dismissed as idiosyncrasies of the mouthpieces, depending on what suits the argument better. Even allowing for a remarkable connection between the prophets and God, this connection doesn't extend to the thousands of translators, editors, publishers, and interpreters over the centuries, each one transforming it to suit his own views or purposes.

There is no perfect version of the Bible, nor does there need to be, in the same way that there is no perfect religion. We won't have perfection on this earth. We work with what we have, our hearts, if opened to the Holy Spirit, will help us in the search for truth.
Since the Bible and religion are imperfect, I would rephrase it like this:

There is no need for the Bible or for religion. We work with what we have. Our minds and hearts will help us search for the truth.

In the quest for truth, the Bible and religion force you down one path, blind to what lies outside it. Without the blinders of religion, there are no predetermined answers: you are free to study and explore all the paths, including those of religion, in the search for truth.

slingblade

18th July 2006, 10:47 AM

I gotta tell you, Elliot: you're so lucky you're a man.

Anacoluthon64

19th July 2006, 12:14 AM

Very convenient. The words in the Bible can be attributed directly to God, or dismissed as idiosyncrasies of the mouthpieces, depending on what suits the argument better. Even allowing for a remarkable connection between the prophets and God, this connection doesn't extend to the thousands of translators, editors, publishers, and interpreters over the centuries, each one transforming it to suit his own views or purposes.All of which raises an even uglier question: Who, and on what basis, decides which is the correct view?

Since most everyone who subscribes to the "truth" or "infallibility" of the bible would vie, "Me! I understand it, I know what god means!" we have this whole contentious mess.

Over and over and over, to the tune of an inundation of sects.

'Luthon64

elliotfc

19th July 2006, 08:49 AM

And here is an example (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/mather/dut-chi.htm)of a well-known minister saying exactly the opposite:

Good one, which proves that even fundamentalist, YEC Christians disagree about things. -Elliot

elliotfc

19th July 2006, 09:01 AM

I'm guessing God could choose to speak in a way that wouldn't be deceiving.

That would make free will irrelevant though, right? Or maybe?

Is there *anything under the sun* that everybody agrees with, uniformly and absolutely? I guess there's math, or maybe just basic math, because some people can't get more advanced math.

Have you ever been frustrated with someone? You tell them something direct and plain, and they hear something different? I think God will respect, and does respect, obstinancy. If you hear the perfect truth, free will enables it to be judged as *imperfect*, that's where I relate it to a deception, because one who does hear the God and think he/she is hearing something evil is being deceived. Self-deception.

How could God choose to speak in a way where we wouldn't be deceived? A person can always *doubt* what was said...chalk it up to Satan or to extraterrestrials or to government water contamination projects. Or, as we Christians believe, God will eventually talk to us in the clearest possible way, it's around the corner, and we live through this important, yet finite, separation from God with faith as our greatest possession.

Placing the blame on the deceived is like a criminal saying, "It's your fault for not catching me."

Or, as many will say to God..."it's your fault for not stopping me." It's an excellent analogy. But I think God will catch the self-deceivers...then it's up to them to do something about it. Or not.

My problem is that Safarti contradicts himself (which is quite obviously not a problem for him). One cannot claim that the Bible is literally true (meaning "as written") and at the same time say it is a matter of translation and the personality of the transcribers. That is what I mean by doubletalk.

Well, no, one can claim that. He obviously did claim it. It's literally true within its limitations, is I think what he's saying.

Would I wish that he would extend that idea further than he does? Sure.

I think that a Harry Potter is literally true, if you immerse yourself within it and accept the world that is portrayed. I've never read one, but I don't need to, it's true as being *literary*. Literally true. Sorry for being difficult. Not really bwah hah.

-Elliot

elliotfc

19th July 2006, 09:10 AM

All of us? Not I. If a reward comes, I won't mind. But I don't choose my behaviors or beliefs in order to earn a reward. Ambition is a foreign concept to me.

OK, I'm sorry, I exclude you from that then. Most of us.

Many times I meet a random person, I'll say something, they say something back...and you know sometimes you meet someone and you say something else because they strike you as interesting. The reward is if they take the bait. Maybe a friendship results?

If we do something which enables several results, hoping for a particular result, that to me is a reward. If you are trying to a new recipie, you do it, and the reward will be the recipie turning into yum yum food. If you've never been to a person's house, and you've got sketchy directions, the reward will be getting there in a short order.

I have realized something, I may be taking the word *reward* and castrating it, just as you have taken the word *miracle* and done the same. If so, you don't need to call me on that, as I already have. Gulp.

As for ambition...people who know me describe me as unambitious. I'm just ambitious for other things that aren't quite apparent. Maybe in your case you are ambitious for something not of this world...let's take something like self-satisfaction, intellectual contentment, the ability to sleep at night. When achieved those are also rewards, and to a person like you or myself, they are greater rewards then a really nice car. Not that I'd have a problem if somebody ever gave me a really nice car.

As for biblical literalism, I assure you I've had "discussions" with a great many self-identified fundamentalist Christians who believed every single word in the Bible was written by God, PERIOD.

I dunno. Let me ask one tonight, I'll get back to you tomorrow. The person I'm going to ask is...well, I think she's a fundamentalist Christian, she goes to a bible church, she is skeptical of my Catholicism, and she reads the Bible every day. Here's what I'm going to ask. If God wrote the Bible, why do we call it the letter from Paul to the Ephesians? Did Paul not write the letter to the Ephesians, and if he didn't, why don't we call it the letter from God to the Ephesians? Are those two questions a good starter for this, or, would you suggest other questions?

-Elliot

elliotfc

19th July 2006, 09:14 AM

God would call Bertrand Russel on that. I think he would chastise Russell for using the word "us", as Russell ought only speak for himself. Second, God would say that he didn't ask for anyone to believe in Him on evidence alone, but on faith.

Russell would be free to disagree, and make follow-up statements, but if, in his pride, he would maintain that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient, that's the kind of obstinancy which would not be condusive to a good relationship between Russell and God. If Russell was interested in that. Of course he wouldn't have to be.

The first thing one says to God? An excuse. Not a good way to start. An assertion, pridefully, that Russell is right and God is wrong. Heck, go for it, I've suggesting not doing such a thing, but people are going to do whatever they want to do.

-Elliot

elliotfc

19th July 2006, 09:22 AM

I agree. Now, can you please explain this to the Fundamentalists.

Why? They tell people all the time that they are not following God's Word, why should I tell them what they already tell others?

Very convenient. The words in the Bible can be attributed directly to God, or dismissed as idiosyncrasies of the mouthpieces, depending on what suits the argument better.

Ah yes, the conveniency of truth. God will agree, methinks. You'll say "very convenient" sarcastically...and God will say...well, yeah. Truth is convenient, to those who seek it. Something like that. Or something else.

Even allowing for a remarkable connection between the prophets and God, this connection doesn't extend to the thousands of translators, editors, publishers, and interpreters over the centuries, each one transforming it to suit his own views or purposes.

I don't think this is like the game of telephone. Scribes took/take to heart the command at the end of Revelation, methinks. I trust that the Bible is solid for what it is: the story of a people's relationship with God, and then how God became man as our means to a full and etenal relationship with God. I don't think that corruption has obscured that...or, has enabled that. Meaning, are you saying that the reason the OT is the story of a people's relationship with God is because it *wasn't* that, until people transformed it into that? And, are you saying that the reason the NT is the story of Jesus Christ is because it *wasn't* that, until people transformed it into that? My skepticism of the Bible is clearly held in check when I consider those two questions.

Since the Bible and religion are imperfect, I would rephrase it like this:

There is no need for the Bible or for religion. We work with what we have. Our minds and hearts will help us search for the truth.

*Need* is up to the individual, on this earth.

Now...if what we have INCLUDES THE BIBLE, the religious believer is totally down with this.

In the quest for truth, the Bible and religion force you down one path, blind to what lies outside it.

Never mind that it's been demonstrated in this thread that there are divergent viewpoints among Christians.

Without the blinders of religion, there are no predetermined answers: you are free to study and explore all the paths, including those of religion, in the search for truth.

But the Christian can do the same, there are Zen Buddhist Christians, there are Christians who work succesfully in the sciences and never talk about or apply their religion.

-Elliot