Prayer and power

[Tricky]

GOSH DARN IT I SPENT 30 MINUTES ON A REPLY, I GET LOGGED OUT, AND ITS WIPED OUT.

That happened to me last night. If I'm planning a long post, sometimes I'll type it in a text document then paste it in.

God wants us to have faith. We accept that idea on faith.

You say ill-informed, I say faith. I think you are speaking from the vantage point of needing evidence to have a relationship with God and Christ. Others who don't have that need are fine with just having faith.

I know. But how do you decide what to have faith in? Couldn’t you read the Bhagvad Gita and have faith in that too? If not, why not?

If there is a way to find truth, I say it MUST be based on something that is objectively observable, otherwise you wind up with “truths” that contradict each other in a way that faith cannot resolve.

I think there's enough information out there to make a decision. We all want things to be perfect, things to be better, but reality is what it is.

Well, needless to say, I disagree that there is enough info to reach a decision. But I agree that reality is all there is.

It's completely true for what it is, and not what we think it is. And there is much agreement about what the Bible means, people always talk about us Christians (fundies especially) like we think the same...and we do, about a lot of things. If we can't grasp the complete truth, that's on us, and not the Bible. The Bible is what it is, objective reality is what it is, but the variable is how we think, what are motivations and limitations are, etc.

You seem to be contradicting yourself at every turn. On one hand, you don’t want people to judge you based on fundies, then you say you are much the same. And the bible is completely true, but it is not objective reality. And I have made the point frequently that people take from the Bible what they want. That can include hate, greed, hypocrisy and anything else, depending on the person’s motivations and limitations.

OK. Then you, personally, *need* (or would need) to have him speak clearly. Others don't. Or, others think that he has spoken clearly.

Not a single Christian that I have ever met will say that God spoke aloud so others can hear Him. So essentially, they’re hearing voices in their head. I don’t regard that as reliable communication.

I think I've said this before. You want to accept God based on evidence, and not based on faith. But that's a non-starter because God said that we should have faith in things that we can't see. So on God's terms, you can't accept him, because your terms differ from his terms.

What else should we accept based on faith? Why not accept Hinduism on faith? Or Communism? Or the Loch Ness Monster? What is special about the Christian version of God that makes it immune to the same requirements for believability that you require of most other things?

You are driven by your needs, which differ from the needs of others. Is the issue the needs of the individual, or God's plan? For whatever reason, the relationship that we have are to have with Christ is fueled by faith in Christ, and not faith in our intellect to sort through the information and build up an evidentiary case. God's plan is what it is. Needs vary from individual to individual. I go with God's plan, and qualify my needs as opposed to using them to judge God's plan.

I agree that most people believe in God because they need to. But needing to believe in God and God actually existing are very different things.

There's some disagreement about this...it appears that about the time of the Babylonian Captivity he stopped being as active in the OT prophecy biz, but maybe he wanted a buffer between that and Christ. I dunno.

I dunno either. It makes no sense to me. If He could speak aloud to us, why doesn’t He? It makes it seem like He is deliberately trying to keep us from knowing Him, which is yet another contradiction in the way God is envisioned by many Christians.

What else is there to be proud about? My intelligence? My health? My tall dark and handsomeness? All those things will pass.

LOL. Well at least you had them once, unlike some of us.

But without going into a lot of detail, I would say there are many things you should be proud of. I just don’t think that acceptance without evidence should be one of them.

If it's just oblivion Tricky, tell me, what is there to be proud of? Things with a limited shelf life? If so, what *things* ought people to take pride in? I submit that's up to the individual.

For me, one of the biggest sources of pride is the things that I do that help others in real, tangible ways. I’ll bet that’s one of yours too. Also I take pride in having one of the largest collections of jokes in the known world.

When oblivion comes, I won’t be proud anymore. I won’t be. C’est la morte. Or as Omar Khayyam says,

“Oh make the most of what we yet may spend
Before we too into the dust descend,
Dust unto dust and under dust to lie,
Sans wine, sans song, sans singer, sans end.”

If it's eternal life, I think faith is an excellent thing to take pride in. The best thing. All of our other attributes whither.

And I think it is a waste of the only life that I am certain exists. Everything withers. It’s how the world works. I can live with that.

I used to work with Down's Kids. Several of them knew Christ as well or better than the smartest people around. They didn't need evidence, they probably still don't need evidence. What we need varies from individual to individual. If the Down's Kids are wrong, that doesn't change individual needs, and all things taken pride in will die with us when we die. If they're right, they still won't have evidence. They'll have the faith though.

How did they know about Christ? Did somebody tell them? Did you? Are you proud that you could convince sick children of your God? I’m betting that their standards of evidence are even lower than yours.

Yeah, maybe sick kids need something to believe in, but it could be anything, just so long as it gives them hope. It could be Santa Claus.

God will hold you to that last sentence...

I’ll be happy to discuss it with Him at any time.

Yes, sin is like a genetic disease, and only Christ could answer sin. I don't think Omar should call that a sorry trade, but I suspect he also doesn't believe that Jesus has answered sin for all of us.

Sin is nothing like a genetic disease. Sin is an offense to your particular religious system. It is a taught thing.
Omar correctly identified that it would be a tyrannical god that created these rules without having us agree to them. No (eternal) taxation without representation.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is literally true?

I guess you have to take it on faith.

 

[Bri]

Then I apologize.

And I accept.

I returned to town just yesterday, and haven't read the thread in nearly a week, so it's possible that some of my points have already been addressed by others.

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.

I'm neither arguing for or against rationalizations of Christian belief. I'm pointing out that the beliefs themselves are not as your argument appears to assume they must be. Your argument seems to be based on an interpretation of passages of the Bible that no Christian actually uses. That you cannot think of another possible interpretation is of little consequence in light of the fact that Christians can and apparently do.

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.

I don't know enough about Christian scripture to tell you exactly how those passages you quoted must be interpreted. However, you seem to be confusing the scripture itself with the tenets and doctrine that are based on interpretation of the scripture. I can tell you that few, if any, Christians believe the scripture means that God grants any and all prayers (which is the only interpretation that has no rational explanation whatsoever). When you were a Christian, I can't imagine that you believed the scripture meant that God grants any and all prayers, but if you did then I'll readily admit you were nuts.

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.

An interpretation of the scripture that requires God to grant any and all prayers is certainly irrational, but then I have seen no evidence of Christian tenets that are based on that irrational interpretation.

Under the umbrella of scripture let me add documented examples of miracles.

So, what are those tenets?

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God promised "all things" and "nothing shall be impossible".
3. 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.
4. 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 I'm understanding you correctly, you are now switching to a second argument. You seem to be saying that since the Christian Bible states that God once performed obvious miracles, the fact that any miracles performed today aren't obvious is evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist. That is a fair argument, but you are ignoring any possible explanations, such as the possibility that God might choose not to perform miracles today in such a way that we would know for certain of his existance.

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.

I am confused. The closest definition of "doctrine" in Webster is "a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief." If no Christian believes that God must grant any and all miracles, how can it be part of any Christian's doctrine?

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.

Yes, "a mysterious super being" is not far from how a Christian might describe his or her God. And that notion of God seems to be central to their belief rather than "Spackle to cover in the rough spots of belief."

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.

Due to the nature of language (particularly an ancient language), even fundamentalists and literalists must interpret the meaning of the scripture. You seem to be arguing that there is no possible interpretation of the scripture other than an irrational one, but Christian tenet seems to prove that argument wrong.

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?

It's only a miracle if the soda can otherwise wouldn't have come out of the machine (for example, if the machine was empty). Since the purpose of the miracle likely isn't to impress you, there is no reason for you to suppose that a soda can coming out of a machine is a miracle (unless you knew beforehand that the machine was empty). In this hypothetical case (assuming you don't know the machine is empty), the purpose of the miracle might be to provide you with a soda, or to provide the owner of the machine with some extra income, or perhaps both.

-Bri

 

[AgingYoung]

Ossai,

A straw man is when I ignore your point then distort it to a weaker point that is readily dismissed. I dismissed your point with an example. There are a lot of examples to dismiss your generalization of a premise...

• Other sections contradict more current knowledge

yet since you seem comfortable in your beliefs I wouldn't want to rock your boat.

Gene

 

[elliotfc]

Wrong. It should not affect free will at all. You could still decide, but your decision would be based on much better information. I can never understand why people describe a God who wants us to be ill-informed.

Let me revisit this point.

There's a heck of a lot of information out there to support the theory of materialistic macroevolution. So much so that some people accept the theory of materialistic macroevolution. But some people have a different opinion. Some people say that the information out there is not anything like evidence, and that the theory is only assumed, based on the present information. *Without debating this particular theory*, my point is that there is a difference of opinion a)about the information, its quality and volume and b)what views and opinions ought to be drawn from the information.

Now, does free will come into play in the above scenario? *Of course it does*. Does the information deceive? Or do individuals deceive themselves when confronted with the information?

Now...I think we have a God who wants us to *choose*. The information is, in fact, there. Is it enough, is it too little? I don't know, and you can ask the same questions about a million other theories.

The information exists, in the gospels. We have ways of disseminating this information. Of course free will has something to do with this, when the individual confronts and engages with the information. If the information is judged to be insufficient, that too is free will, just as if a creationist examined the evidence for macroevolution and determined that the information was insufficient. "But they're wrong, and I'm right." And that, too, is free will.

Information is what it is. We have opinions about it. Too much, too little, is also an opinion. If information could speak for itself we wouldn't have or need people who promote and instruct and propagate.

-Elliot

 

[Ossai]

AgingYoung

A straw man is when I ignore your point then distort it to a weaker point that is readily dismissed. I dismissed your point with an example. There are a lot of examples to dismiss your generalization of a premise...

Other sections contradict more current knowledge

yet since you seem comfortable in your beliefs I wouldn't want to rock your boat.

You want specifics, have a few:
How many disciplines are present when Jesus appears to them after the resurrection?
There two differing genealogies given for Jesus.
The Jehoakim clan was specifically banned by god from taking part in the lineage of David, yet it is mentioned for Jesus in an attempt to link him back to David.
Know of any 2000+ year old people running around?
Which is correct Predestination or freewill, the bible supports both?
The orders of creation listed in Genesis don’t match neither each other nor science.
The world isn’t flat.
How many animals were carried on the Ark?
Why are there three sets of the ten commandments in the same book, two of which don’t match?
Is god for or against divorce?
And if you want a more direct contradiction, what was written above Jesus on the cross?
Does god lie?
Are people saved by faith or works?
Why isn’t the Jesus story at least original?
If the bible contains ultimate moral guidelines why are most now ignored by society as barbaric or unjust?
Why did Jesus preach only to Jews and exclude everyone else?
When was Jesus born?
If Jesus was supposed to be the messiah, why didn’t he meet the prophecies?
Meet any Christians with the superpower that they are supposed to have?

Ossai

 

[Tricky]

Let me revisit this point.

There's a heck of a lot of information out there to support the theory of materialistic macroevolution. So much so that some people accept the theory of materialistic macroevolution. But some people have a different opinion. Some people say that the information out there is not anything like evidence, and that the theory is only assumed, based on the present information. *Without debating this particular theory*, my point is that there is a difference of opinion a)about the information, its quality and volume and b)what views and opinions ought to be drawn from the information.

Now, does free will come into play in the above scenario? *Of course it does*. Does the information deceive? Or do individuals deceive themselves when confronted with the information?

There are indeed varying qualities of information. If the information is such that verifiable statements can be made about it, then it would be better than information about which nothing verifiable can be said. While there still may be difference on the meaning of the information, the presence of the information is not really in doubt.

Now...I think we have a God who wants us to *choose*. The information is, in fact, there. Is it enough, is it too little? I don't know, and you can ask the same questions about a million other theories.

It is not information that can be well verified. Occasionally (as one thread discusses) minor parts about this information may be validated, but not the main contention. As you remind us, it must be taken on faith.

The information exists, in the gospels. We have ways of disseminating this information. Of course free will has something to do with this, when the individual confronts and engages with the information. If the information is judged to be insufficient, that too is free will, just as if a creationist examined the evidence for macroevolution and determined that the information was insufficient. "But they're wrong, and I'm right." And that, too, is free will.

Certainly you can choose (via free will) to ignore independantly verifiable information. A creationist might be able to hold a fossil in his hands and observe that it resembles a living creature. He might be able to further verify (with lots of research) that though it resembles some living creatures, it is not quite like any creature that we are aware exists. He might further be able to verify that this particular fossil lies in strata with similar but not exact fossils of similar, non-extant creatures. He might indeed find a string of creatures that procede along a scale from very like living creatures, to not much like living creatures (such as the well-described lineage from Eohippus to the modern horse.) Information of this type is readily abundant.

He might choose to conclude that all of these fossils were placed there (with great attention to minute detail) by the Devil to confuse us. Free will gives him that choice. But he cannot deny that this information, be it the result of evolution or placed by the devil, does in fact exist.

But by comparison, information about Heaven, or the divinity of Jesus is not readily abundant. You cannot hold in your hands a fossil of a soul ascending to heaven. You cannot speak with a deceased person in a way that all can hear. It can scarcely even be called information, but rather only allegations.

Can anyone interpret information the way they choose? Certainly they can. Is there a difference between abundant information and scanty information? I would say there is.

Could God, if he wanted to, make information about His existance abundant rather than scanty? You tell me.

 

[AgingYoung]

Genesius,

Does this mean that you agree that when Jesus said....

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

He wasn't speaking to everyone? I'd move on but I'm still back at your original point of ...

• 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.

Do you have another proof text to support your premise?

Gene

 

[elliotfc]

I've said it before, but it bears saying ad eternam.

When I prayed, I wasn't asking God for anything selfish...I was praying for an end to my suffering.

But Sling, EVERYBODY will have an end to their suffering. Why pray for the inevitable?

The request for God to end suffering and death has been answered (Jesus) but we won't receive the full fruits of that til after we die. Suffering is part of life, and we see this in the life of Christ. No, God won't end suffering when you tell him to end suffering. He has addressed suffering, in his own way, and of course you aren't content with that.

But anyhow, the larger point is that your suffering will end, you just have to be patient and endure. An athesit can accept this just as well as a believer, it's one of the ideas we *share*, as a matter of fact.

I was begging god to please let me have just one friend whose father didn't want to have sex with me.

But friendship is a two-way street. God isn't going to force another human being to be your friend, or anyone's friend. It's probably too late for this...but if God compels someone to be your friend...what kind of friend is that? A friend who is forced to be your friend?

Later, I was begging God to please heal my husband from his addictions, because I've seen what a nice, caring, loving man he can be, and can't he be that man all the time, please? Can he stop hitting me, screaming at me, humiliating me, insulting me, ignoring me....can he stop telling me what a horrible mother I am, can he stop leaving other women's phone numbers and underwear where I can find them, and can he stop dragging me to church where I get to watch him weep and wail and promise God he'll do better, and then take me and the kids home and go out to the movies with his current mistress that afternoon?

Did your husband want God's healing? Again, if we ask God to change people, even for the best of reasons, God takes away their free will. Change, like friendship, can't be forced on someone. Or, it can be...but then what is it really? God reprogramming us, as if we were robots?

Now some folks want me to think that what I was praying for wasn't God's will. Isn't that what's being said?

But you were involving other people in these prayers. If God would manipulate others (again for the best of reasons) to satisfy you, couldn't God also manipulate *you* for the satisfaction of others?

What if someone prayed, to God, that something would be done to you...so that you would change to suit that other person's wishes. Is this the kind of God we want?

Do you have my sypmathies and good will? Yes, you do. I'm not trying to be mean. If you have *evolved* away from previous...let's call it unconstructive thinking...I'm just trying here to test your evolution. It can't hurt, can it? If you follow through with your way of thinking, when does it end, with who does it end, and what about free will?

I *get* your perspective, but what about other people's perspective? What about people who pray that *you* change? And what standards would be used for those prayers? And does God answer all prayers, or only good ones? And is it right to have God convert others against their will, to make other people happy?

What if we prayed that Hezbollah (probably spelled it wrong) converted to make them into people that Israelis would like? But what if other people prayed that Israelis would be turned into people that Hezbollah likes? Then what?

This is the *kind* of stuff I'm getting at. Big picture stuff. Without isolating you and targetting your kind of prayer...let's maybe see what happens if we extend prayer to others who don't think like us. And if we do, it gets messy. Really, really messy. God answering everyones prayers to *change* other people, prayers which are the opposite of other prayers, and then God just being a reprogrammer to change others, against their wills, to make other people happy.

Whatever God is, we Christians don't believe he does this kind of stuff.

God grants prayers which fall in line with his will.

HE HAS ESSENTIALLY GRANTED EVERY PRAYER with Jesus. His way to conquer sin and death and suffering is Jesus. Prayers to end suffering have been granted according to his will, and not according to our will. Because if we apply our will it leads to chaos (again, think about a world where every prayer to do anything and everything was granted by God).

Being human, I can only submit to that will; I've no right to ask anything of God.

No, you have the right to ask *anything* of God. You can call God any name you want. You can reject God. Anything you want. That's free will! It isn't a question of "do we have the right"...but it could be a question of "is it right"....separating an idea of objective morality to the idea of free will and individual rights.

God wanted all those men to hurt me?
God wanted my husband to hurt me?
Pardon my blunt, but that's pretty harsh.

I don't believe God wanted those things, anymore than he wanted his Son crucified. But he allows for free will. To me the issue is allowance of free will in general as an overall topic as opposed to specific items which follow from that allowance.

I've got limited choices here, you must admit. God hates me, or God doesn't exist.

Yes, I must admit that you have made the choices limited. There are more choices, but I can't force you obviously to accept that. God wouldn't answer my prayer to reprogram your brain to accept other choices any more or less than he would reprogram the brains of those who physically and sexually abused you.

I figure you eventually have to come to a place much like that, if you're a fundie and you're tired of being hurt by your beliefs.

I think this is demonstrably false, right?

Remember, being a fundie woman, I also had to put up with every man's disdain, in my circle. I'm the source of all evil in the world. I'm the weaker vessel. I can't speak in church, must submit to my husband, and have no recourse. No one is on my side. I'm a lowly woman.

Mary was a lowly woman too, but God exalted her to a place above all humans, and that includes us great guys called men.

Not all fundie, or Christian, women accept your sentiments above.

Yes, Elliot. I know you live in a wonderful world where Christianity isn't really like this. Goodie for you. When you talk, all I can see is someone else God likes better than me.

Well I'm fortunate and blessed to belong to a wonderful church. I've never been married, never been a fundamentalist, and have always kept an open mind about these matters (meaning, I've never *not* been able to entertain alternate theories and viewpoints). I've never thought of this as God liking me or not liking someone else. I don't take any credit for the lack of serious misfortunate in my life. In fact, since my life goes pretty smoothly I think God expects a hell of a lot more from me than others. I don't think I'm off the hook, in other words.

Again, we all suffer to some extent (some a lot more than others) and we will all die. Death is the great equalizer. God doesn't like anybody so much that they won't die. We live, we do the best we can, and I don't see any point in condemning those who have lived a demonstrably harsher life than I have.

The other equalizer, besides death, is Christ. If the wages of sin are equal to all, so is the salvation we can gain in Christ. *It does not follow* that everyone with your experience set will necessarily choose atheism anymore than anyone with my experience set will necessarily choose a religion. Despair and tragedy and grief and pain and suffering can bring people *to* religion just as well as lead people away from religion.

But if one is lucky, when one tries to break away from this hell on earth, one encounters logic, reason, and critical thought. One can realize, "I have been lied to, for years." It isn't that God hates me....it's that there is no God, and I have been duped by a lot of people, most of whom have also been duped.

The implication is that believers have not encountered logic, reason, and critical thought. I don't think your experience set makes such judgment legitimate. I do accept that it brings you comfort though, so I won't hold it against you, no reason to beat you up about this, it's just your opinion.

But anyhow, even if we have been duped, it's equal oblivion for all of us. In which case we will just do what we do. Feelings will follow. That's life. There would be the same explanation for the best of deeds as the worst of deeds, and all you can do is the best you can, cope as well as you can.

We've all been duped then, some less than others, but the species survives. That's the reality. Being duped is something to talk about until we are dead. And if we are no longer duped, then the species will survive and we'll talk about something else until we are dead.

I've been depending on, counting on, and being disappointed by......nothing.
I've believed the lie. The Great Lie. I've been taught all my life how not to think, because thinking is antithetical to belief.

Well that's just stupid.

I agree that if I think like you used to think I'd be believing a lie too.

So I'm sticking to my argument, Elliot. God promised many times in the bible to grant his followers what we ask for. Yes, there are verses in which Jesus addressed those promises to his disciples. There are other places where the common person was being addressed. And my fundie faith taught me from my earliest memory that those promises were for me. But they lied. They may not have known they were lying, but that doesn't negate the fact.

Anybody who told you that God will do anything a person wants, no ifs ands or buts, did not necessary lie to you (they may have sincerely believed what they told to you) but yes, they did mislead you. But you don't need me to understand that, you already do.

If, when I die, I do encounter a god after all, I'll have only one question for him, and I won't be the least bit ashamed to ask it, stridently and often:

Why?

He'll give you the perfect answer, and you won't be forced to accept that answer any more or less than God would force people to change to suit our wills, no matter how wonderful our requests are.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Had another thought: doesn't this mean Jesus was talking to himself, trying to renegotiate a deal he made with himself for something he set up in the first place?

And you want me to think I should model this, apparently.

No, it meant that Jesus was being human and qualifying his prayer as every human should.

I agree that you shouldn't model it the way in which you articulated it.

-Elliot

 

[AgingYoung]

Whoa Ossai, whoa!

Well if it's all the same to you, rather than head off in multiple directions I'd prefer to back up to the point where you alleged that I used a strawman. Could you either specifically detail that allegation or retract it?

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

Ossai,

A straw man is when I ignore your point then distort it to a weaker point that is readily dismissed.

You mean like taking the claim "at least large sections, are obviously not true" and distorting it down to a single example, then dismiss that example and pretend it refutes the claim?

I dismissed your point with an example. There are a lot of examples to dismiss your generalization of a premise...

Thinking that "lots" of examples dismiss the claim that are sections of the Bible that are not true is non sequitur, and this is the fallacy you performed with your example above. You would have to show that everything, not "lots" of things, in the Bible is true to refute the claim because you can have lots of true things as well as lots of false things. However, the way you presented your argument is what made it a straw man. That is, the idea that your single example completely refuted Ossai's point.

• Other sections contradict more current knowledge

yet since you seem comfortable in your beliefs I wouldn't want to rock your boat.

Anyone know that he was talking about here? 'Cause this make no sense whatsoever.

 

[elliotfc]

If you think Slinglblade intended that to mean that she had some issues about the nature of the holy trinity, then you really weren't listening.

I think she was talking about the holy binary, Jesus being God and God being Jesus. But I also think AgingYoung made a good point, albeit gruffly. But he also replied to a clear offhand dismissive comment, and that's always not a good idea, particularly when you return the favor. I mean, I've *never* done such a thing meself.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

So Peter was crucified upside-down? Just think, if he had prayed in Jesus' name to be rescued he wouldn't have been martyred. Guess Peter was pretty dumb not to think of that one, huh?

He asked to be crucified upside down. And he didn't ask God. I don't get yer point.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, I think that's accurate, although I can't, clearly, speak for anyone else. The gravitating difference, however, is in the acceptance and rejection criteria of each side. Where you see revelation, I see a rout of logic and reason.

'Luthon64

To some extent you're right. Destroying death, by dying, is a neat trick, but God is bigger than human logic and reason. You don't have to accept that now or for eternity if you don't want to of course.

-Elliot

 

[AgingYoung]

Ossai,

This is how I see your point. Feel free to correct it if I'm wrong.

Since all those premises are based on the bible,

Premises:

1. the bible, or at least large sections, are obviously not true
2. other sections contradict more current knowledge
3. and other parts contradict itself

....then the only conclusion to be drawn is that

Conclusion with imbedded conditional....

• the bible, if from one divinely inspired source, is nothing more than a lie.

We are presently discussing point 2 of the premise you're using to support your conditional conclusion and your allegation of a strawman.

Gene

 

[Genesius]

Genesius,

Does this mean that you agree that when Jesus said....

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

He wasn't speaking the everyone? I'd move on but I'm still back at your original point of ...

• 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.

Do you have another proof text to support your premise?

Gene

I was responding to Elliot's crack about Peter asking to be crucified, in which he ignored your assertion concerning that quote only applying to the disciples.

I don't agree that Jesus said anything, since I have yet to see one bit of hard evidence that such a person actually existed.

 

[I less than three logic]

Ossai feel free to reiterate my previous post, as I believe AgingYoung has me on ignore. We had an unpleasant discussion a while back after he made the claim that a Christian that rapes is no different than a Muslim, which he never actually retracted nor restated, but that is really besides the point.

I would warn you though, that debating AgingYoung is truly an exercise in futility. It is, however, not without its entertainment value.

 

[slingblade]

But Sling, EVERYBODY will have an end to their suffering.

You're absolutely right, elliot.

I'm going to go help that along now.

edit: meaning, I'm out of here for a while. I need a break from such sanctimonious crap.

 

[Tricky]

Double post

 

[Tricky]

But Sling, EVERYBODY will have an end to their suffering. Why pray for the inevitable?

The request for God to end suffering and death has been answered (Jesus) but we won't receive the full fruits of that til after we die. Suffering is part of life, and we see this in the life of Christ. No, God won't end suffering when you tell him to end suffering. He has addressed suffering, in his own way, and of course you aren't content with that.

You can't be serious. Either you are not aware that (by my interpretation) Slingblade was not asking for death to free her, but just to be out of her horrible situation, or you are saying she shouldn't hope and pray to get out of that situation. If it is the former, you are merely thick, but if it is the latter, you are downright cruel. I prefer you thick.