Prayer and power

[Meffy]

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]

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]

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]

I gotta tell you, Elliot: you're so lucky you're a man.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

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]

And here is an example of a well-known minister saying exactly the opposite:

Good one, which proves that even fundamentalist, YEC Christians disagree about things. -Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[elliotfc]

I gotta tell you, Elliot: you're so lucky you're a man.

If I wasn't a man, I wouldn't be Elliot. I'd have some sissified feminine sounding name I reckon.

As opposed to a sissified masculine sounding name.

-Elliot

 

[slingblade]

What god?

Oh, I didn't see your little "joke" there about being a man. Ha-ha.
Wow, too funny.

 

[elliotfc]

All of which raises an even uglier question: Who, and on what basis, decides which is the correct view?

God.

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.

We know what God means because he has revealed to us the correct view, and we accept it on faith.

Over and over and over, to the tune of an inundation of sects.

Yeah. Some people are closer to the truth than others. And if no religions existed, some people will also be closer to the truth than others.

-Elliot

 

[AgingYoung]

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.

• Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

yep, pretty straight forward. Jesus was talking to the disciples. I think the confusion comes in when you think that what Jesus told Peter (for instance) is applicable to you.

God does indeed answer every prayer. Sometimes the answer is, 'are you joking? You're pulling my finger aren't you?'

A. Geneius Young

edit: please excuse me if someone has covered this point

 

[Genesius]

• Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

yep, pretty straight forward. Jesus was talking to the disciples. I think the confusion comes in when you think that what Jesus told Peter (for instance) is applicable to you.

God does indeed answer every prayer. Sometimes the answer is, 'are you joking? You're pulling my finger aren't you?'

A. Geneius Young

edit: please excuse me if someone has covered this point

So God plays favorites with his children, huh? Gives extra goodies to Peter and his other pets & treats the rest of us like stepchildren?

Pretty lousy parenting, God. . .

 

[Anacoluthon64]

We know what God means because he has revealed to us the correct view, and we accept it on faith.

Yes, it is entirely clear how right you think you are. And, obviously, any competing interpretation must de facto be wrong.

Yeah. Some people are closer to the truth than others. And if no religions existed, some people will also be closer to the truth than others.

Indeed.

'Luthon64

 

[Meffy]

please excuse me if someone has covered this point

I seem to have done so in post #10 of this thread. But what the heck, it's Christmas.

 

[Genesius]

I seem to have done so in post #10 of this thread. But what the heck, it's Christmas.

July 19th is the anthropomorphic skunk Christmas? Dare I ask what kind of Savior y'all worship? Or does Christmas have a different meaning in the Kingdom of the Skunks?

 

[AgingYoung]

• So God plays favorites with his children, huh? Gives extra goodies to Peter and his other pets & treats the rest of us like stepchildren?

You need a different context, Genesius. There are the adopted children and then there are the ones that aren't adopted yet want to think that they are. Those are the illegitimate ones.

Merry Christmas, Meffy. I'm planning on getting you the same thing I got you last year.

Gene

 

[Genesius]

• So God plays favorites with his children, huh? Gives extra goodies to Peter and his other pets & treats the rest of us like stepchildren?

You need a different context, Genesius. There are the adopted children and then there are the ones that aren't adopted yet want to think that they are. Those are the illegitimate ones.

Merry Christmas, Meffy. I'm planning on getting you the same thing I got you last year.

Gene

No problem with my context. Not all parents in a mixed household are capable of treating their biological children and stepchildren the same.

The point still stands - if your assertion is correct, God gives goodies to his favorites that He denies the rest of us. As I said, lousy parenting.