Prayer and power

[elliotfc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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"?

By the way, which is the "true" version of the Bible? Why that particular one?

 

[RandFan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"?

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]

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]

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 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.

Surely, 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.

Undutiful 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.

When 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.

Children, 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.

Be 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.

Yea, be Dutiful to thy Parents, or expect all the formidable outpourings of an Infinite and Eternal Wrath upon they Soul.

 

[elliotfc]

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]

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]

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]

[/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]

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.