Answered Prayer

[Diamonds&Rust]

Ask them. You know people are killing and torturing each other based on something just this simple, right?

You oversimplify everything, and then complain that it's too simple to be reasonable.

 

All of religion is bad because people have used religion to justify violence.

 

Prayer as a practice is ineffective because it doesn't work the way I think the Bible dictates that it does.

 

No religions can be correct because they don't all agree with each other.

Maybe. If that is the case, why do the books have any value at all.

Christianity is, in context, a fulfillment of a covenant between Ancient Jews and their God. To ignore the history of Judaism is to pretend that Jesus just appeared one day and took everyone by surprise.

 

The reason a Christian can benefit (not necessarily does benefit, but can benefit) from reading Leviticus is the same way an American can benefit from reading the Articles of Confederation.

 

I don't have to prove he doesn't exist, you have to prove he does.

I realize this. My point is not that you are obligated to prove God doesn't exist. My point is only that you haven't, despite claiming that you have.

And since you can't why should I accept any of your assertions about what he wants, how prayer works, or any of it?

I'm not asking you to accept my assertions, I'm just pointing out that the thing you're saying you're doing isn't actually happening.

 

Never once have I attempted to share my faith with you, because it's clear you're not interested in hearing about it.

 

For example, you have taken me to task for not providing scriptural interpretations of passages you have misinterpreted. It's not because I'm not capable of it. I know Greek, Hebrew, and a detailed history of most world religions. I'm familiar with hundreds of commentaries on the Gospels and the Old Testament.

 

I simply realize that you're not interested in learning more about the passages that you know very little about. People have tried to tell you their interpretation, and you've dismissed it, saying, basically, "Well millions of others disagree with you"--How can I argue with that? More importantly, why would I bother?

 

I am still waiting for you to post one single shred of evidence. All you have done is make assertions.

 

Likewise, all you have done is make assertions.

 

We both know that such a position is untenable, but as you well know most believers take just that approach.

I also don't care. In my mind, the fact that people are getting it wrong in large numbers does not indict the whole belief system; additionally, such a belief (which you clearly hold, or at least rely on) is not logically sound.

 

Why am I wrong for examining their point of view on them?

 

You're not, but this is a backpedal. You're not simply examining the fundamentalist viewpoint and finding it to be invalid. You're saying, basically, that because they're wrong, everyone's wrong, and it's not logically sound.

 

Then why are you even posting?

Because I think it's ridiculous to say that prayer is bad for everyone simply because fundamentalists can't move mountains.

 

Are you saying his point of view is laughable and irrelevant? Why don't you take that point up with him.

 

Moose knows that I don't approve of his scriptural scholarship. As far as I know, we get along anyway, because the bottom line is I don't care about how he chooses to worship God. Additionally, I don't care that you don't worship God. It's more that you're claiming to accomplish logical feats that you are not, in fact, accomplishing.

 

How can taking what Jesus supposedly said be irrelevant? You can't take five minutes and write a quick paragraph explaining why it is metaphorical?

Why bother?

 

You'll simply say that other people don't agree with me. You might even mention that they kill one another. Believe me, if I felt the slightest bit that you had a genuine interest in the spiritual beliefs of other people, I would share mine. But not when your only interest is in obstacles in a debate.

 

Ok, when the theocracy is in place and they make interpreting the Bible as you do illegal, I'll make sure to remind you of that.

 

I'm beginning to think you deify the red herring.

 

You make outrageous claims--that no prayer is ever answered, that prayer itself is a harmful practice, and that you know God does not exist.

 

You then talk about the evils of organized religion and the intellectual errancy of fundamentalists as if that's evidence for any of your claims. It's not.

 

Awesome for you. I quote: "The fact is, in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, homosexuality is mentioned in the context of sexual and immoral behavior! The context is quite clear -- a variety of behaviors are prohibited; homosexuality -- along with adultery, fornication and idolatry -- is one of them."

 

I stand by what I said. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible.

 

The Bible predates the modern concept of homosexuality--that someone would be born with a natural desire towards romance of the same sex. This is a concept that people still have trouble understanding, so it's not surprising that Paul, Timothy, or the Levites didn't understand it either.

 

And: We can allow some discrepancy in minor areas of translation

Maybe you can because you have a cursory knowledge of the Bible. I can't because I actually care. When I read the New Testament, it's in its original Greek. When I read the Old Testament, it's in its original Hebrew.

 

Anyway, if you're curious, there is no Ancient Greek word for homosexuality.

 

Just let 'em keep spouting hate, even though you--and I assume you to mean only you--can stop them using their very own book!

Why the red herrings? I'm not an apologist for the haters.

 

I'm merely not letting you use guilt by association fallacies to indict the entire practice of prayer, nor the belief that a God exists.

 

They just torture the Bible to make them say what they want it to.

That's my damn point, and it goes just as well for homophobics and misogynists and warmongers and anyone else who has used scripture to justify their actions. The fact that they are armed with Bible verses is not evidence that the Bible (or religion in general) motivated them to act.

 

You could believe that the Bible made Martin Luther hate women, if you want to. It does make him easier to indict. You just can't claim that you have evidence for it, when it's just as likely that he already hated women, and found scriptural verses to support his position.

The situation I described was certainly an anecdote, but not an unusual occurrence. Again, when people tell me that the reason they hate something is because it was in the Bible I take them at their word.

Oh, but shouldn't you examine everything critically?

 

Anecdotal evidence is not logical support. You made the assertion that the Bible causes homophobia, but you cannot support it soundly.

 

Why are evangelicals the most rabid homophobes in our culture?

You mean why do they get the most time in the public sphere to talk about it?

 

People find them interesting, I guess.

 

Since their belief system informs almost their entire view of the world, why can we not say it is their faith that leads them to this belief

Because you don't have evidence to support that claim. Again, I'm only holding you to your own standard. If we take people at their word, then God must surely exist. If we require evidence to support a claim, you have to do better than you have done.

 

The evidence I am asking for is one single example of your interpretation, and why it is more valid than Moose's. That's it.

I refuse to participate in your theatre of misdirection, especially when I already know your response.

 

If I wasted my time on a long drawn out explanation, you'd simply dismiss my beliefs as not corresponding to many other people's beliefs--would you not?

[lonelybird]

Which is impossible. Why do you believe what you do and not something else? You must have a reason, right?

I told you I communicate with Holy Spirit everyday, but you don't believe me, and wants to send me to a mental hospital...

 

see, I am happy I found God or God found me, thanks for God's mercy, but also I understand that people believe in God or not IS BETWEEN GOD AND THEM. Do I tell the good news and everybody would be saved? of course. but believing the good news or not is really a personal thing. NOT that we can change anybody or force anybody to believe, only God can change people's heart:) and this kind of changing heart has its own time own season, I strongly believe seeds will grow out one day

[Island Girl]

I stand by what I said. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible.

 

It most certainly does.

 

Leviticus 18:22

 

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

Leviticus20:13

 

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans 1:26 - 27

 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

The Bible predates the modern concept of homosexuality--that someone would be born with a natural desire towards romance of the same sex. This is a concept that people still have trouble understanding, so it's not surprising that Paul, Timothy, or the Levites didn't understand it either.

 

To say that the modern concept of homosexuality is that someone is born with a natural desire is forward thinking. And while I share your viewpoint, that people are born homosexual, that is not the accepted view. It is a heavily debated topic in fact. Most people do not believe as you or I do. Some are on the fence but indecision and a decision that is opposite put most people in the "it is a choice" category.

 

And whether or not Paul, Timothy, or the Levites understood the concept of our modern view of this type of relationship, it is VERY clear they understood the sexual act and deemed it as wrong.

 

The word we have created to define this type of relationship is homosexuality.

 

The definition as published is:

 

1: Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

2: Sexual activity with another of the same sex. Also:

 

1 : the quality or state of being homosexual

2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

 

 

So it is all about the actual sexual act and very clearly that is what they were writing about.

 

 

Maybe you can because you have a cursory knowledge of the Bible. I can't because I actually care. When I read the New Testament, it's in its original Greek. When I read the Old Testament, it's in its original Hebrew.

 

 

Homosexuality seems to be one thing that the Jews (who read the bible in its original Hebrew) and Christians agree on.

 

It's in the book. They are all misinterpreting the words then?

 

If that is the case I invite you to clarify those passages I posted. Enlighten me please. If the text was rewritten incorrectly or does not actually say any thing of the kind I'd really like to know.

 

 

Anyway, if you're curious, there is no Ancient Greek word for homosexuality.

 

You say this as if it isn't common knowledge.

 

Your attitude demonstrates, as in your other posts, that you believe you are somehow more schooled or well read than others out here in the big world when that is far from the truth. I'm sure there are others like myself who have a firm grasp of the material as well. Anyone who can read can do the research.

 

And while it is true that that Ancient Greeks did not have a word for it. There are many writings and artwork that describe such a relationship. These works are expressly sexual in nature.

 

We have created a word for such a relationship but by no means does it follow that, by creating a word to define such behavior, the behavior did not exist beforehand.

 

It most certainly did.

 

And with your extensive studies you most certainly do know that as well.

[quankanne]

These dumb little things aren't seen as so dumb to billions of people. they are killing each other over them right now. Man doesn't choose religion to divide things, the books do it for them.

 

yes, he does – he makes the ultimate decision on what he believes or disbelieves. The books are not bad or evil; people interpret what they've read, and act upon that interpretation. We've got people in this world who hate Jews, but call themselves good Christians ... without seeing the irony that the very man they purport to follow was Jewish!

 

that's why I call them dumb little things – for all the varied beliefs and interpretations of things, they still can never encompass the mind or heart of God, yet we still argue to death what we interpret as right and wrong.

 

Jesus said "no Way to Heaven but through me." Moose thinks that is literally true (I wonder why he hasn't taken Diamonds&Rust to task for calling him ridiculous). Muslims believe that anyone who thinks Christ is divine will go to Hell. They literally believe this. And why not? it is in their books that god wrote.

 

GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE OR THE KORAN .... AAAAIIIIGGGHHHH. For the nth time, those holy books are an account of man's spiritual journey as evidenced by their relationship with a Supreme Being. Besides, if God actually sat down and wrote a book, who would take time to read it? And if millions read the book, how many would actually get the message he was trying to share? A very small handful is my guess, because everyone else would be busy trying to interpret the thing.

 

Again, everyone has their different take on things, but only God knows the human heart. I believe in the salvation offered by Christ with all my heart, and I understand that God is infinitely merciful towards us, giving us every chance possible to find our way home to him through whatever means we take. For some that will be through the path of Christ, for others, it's a direct commitment of faith to him. Ultimately, it's about finding our way to Him, and I believe that's the message Jesus wants us to "get."

 

as I've said before, I love my faith, but I'm not going to pigeon-hole everyone into it, because God is bigger than any man-made vehicle used to get to him. And I get the feeling that many others feel the same way, but are so busy battling against the naysayers that they can only respond defensively about their belief system.

[ThumbingMyWay]

Again, everyone has their different take on things, but only God knows the human heart. I believe in the salvation offered by Christ with all my heart, and I understand that God is infinitely merciful towards us, giving us every chance possible to find our way home to him through whatever means we take. For some that will be through the path of Christ, for others, it's a direct commitment of faith to him. Ultimately, it's about finding our way to Him, and I believe that's the message Jesus wants us to "get."

 

very well put....

 

 

Chirst makes sence with me too...so thats the path I choose....

[Diamonds&Rust]

Enlighten me please. If the text was rewritten incorrectly or does not actually say any thing of the kind I'd really like to know.

Start a new thread if you want.

 

And while it is true that that Ancient Greeks did not have a word for it. There are many writings and artwork that describe such a relationship. These works are expressly sexual in nature.

 

Are you describing pederasty?

 

We have created a word for such a relationship but by no means does it follow that, by creating a word to define such behavior, the behavior did not exist beforehand.

Nor is that what I said. Of course it existed. The fact that it existed did not mean anyone paid it any mind, nor does it mean anyone understood it.

 

The modern concept of homosexuality DOES include the "forward-thinking" idea that people could be born with homosexual desires and otherwise capable of normal, healthy sexual behavior. That's what homosexual is. It's not pederasty, it's not Pagan fertility ritual, it's not the American Psychiatric Foundation listing it as a disease--it's a brand, spanking new concept, and it's not mentioned in the Bible. Read: Not that it didn't exist in Biblical times, it just wasn't understood.

 

Anyway, this is all a complete derailment from the initial thread.

[Moose]

And it goes beyond "ridding the world of believers." It is my hope, that as the world gets more and more dangerous and the world technology available to all increases, people become more rational. That's it. And you have to start somewhere.

So...in a sense, since I'm a believer, I'm irrational? This is your way of insulting us? The world becoming more dangerous, and knowlege increasing is prophecy being fullfilled. We, (believers), have THE most RATIONAL outlook on these things than non-believers, yet you insist we're irrational.....hmmmmm.

If there is a God, especially the one you are so insistent exists, we should see evidence of it RIGHT NOW.

So the oxygen you just breathed in....supplied by plant life isn't sufficient? Here....I hope this makes you laugh:

 

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.

"Tonto, look up and tell me what you see."

Tonto replies, "Me see millions of stars."

"What does that tell you?" asks The Lone Ranger.

Tonto ponders for a minute.

"Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.

Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.

Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.

Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.

Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.

What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?"

The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.

"Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent."

 

The above joke is a good lesson in missing the obvious. Chances are that you were surprised by the Lone Ranger's response. However, the first sentence of the joke tells you that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were camping in a tent. It should have been clear at Tonto's first response that he was missing the obvious.

 

Likewise, those who have already decided that God does not exist and that all processes must have a naturalistic explanation, do not see the obvious evidence that the universe was designed, rather than happened by chance.

 

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

 

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves." - Glanz, J. 1999. AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY MEETING: Hawking Blesses the Accelerating Universe. Science 284: 34-35.

 

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

 

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age." - The Origin-of-Life Prize from the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.

One single, verifiable miracle would convince me.

How about two or three.....and MORE evidence?:

 

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." - Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

 

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." - Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

 

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." - Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

 

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." - Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).

Yet you claim to KNOW that which no scientist on the planet suggests he does. Who is arrogant in this case?

See the above......I rest my case.....

One prayer answered that deviates from what we would expect based on probability would convince me.

If that's true......then read this study:http://http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf

There is such a thing as indirect observation.

But that still isn't GOOD enough for you! Even the obvious doesn't phase you......how would "indirect observation" sway you? You're the type that insists on tangibles......

We know that we share a common ancestor with apes because we can observe the process indirectly using the fossil record. We can do so with such certainty that no credible biologist or anthropologist disagrees with this. The evidence is overwhelming.

"We"? No.....YOU!:

http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2007/05/24/evidence-that-humans-are-evolving-is-not-evidence-for-human-evolution/

These dumb little things aren't seen as so dumb to billions of people. they are killing each other over them right now. Man doesn't choose religion to divide things, the books do it for them.

I absolutely agree with atheists and others who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, and even in the name of Christianity.

 

BUT, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. If we look at the history of democide (which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder, but not war-dead) prior to the 20th century, we find that millions of people were killed by people groups who wanted the other people groups eliminated.

Jesus said "no Way to Heaven but through me." Moose thinks that is literally true (I wonder why he hasn't taken Diamonds&Rust to task for calling him ridiculous).

Number one, yes....I do take that literally, and I KNOW it to be true. Number 2, Diamonds&Rust, to my knowledge hasn't called me ridiculous, however, he's not the one with the agenda here......you are.

I agree. Moose would disagree with you, given his last post. But I still ask, in that case, why pay attention to the Bible at all?

As Quank put it.....God didn't sit down and write the Bible. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God. There isn't one word in the Scriptures that was placed without His intervention. You claim that I take the Bible literally. There are some parts that I do, because that IS THE CONTEXT. You like to put words in my mouth, then turn them against fellow posters just to take the attention off of you......nice lil' trick there.....I see it all over this thread now.....

[quankanne]

... breathe, moose ... breathe ...

 

I totally get Moai's disgust with people who use faith for personal advancement or glory. However, one refuses to put one's intellect to work when he or she fails to separate the person behind the action – in this case, to place blame squarely on the person and his greed, not the misuse of religion to steal from people.

 

is it easier to make a sweeping generalization about something you don't understand or you passionately abhor, than really *think* about what it is that makes feel the way you do about said thing? Kinda like saying "I dislike the Dallas Mavericks, I think they suck," based solely on my opinion of Mark Cuban. I actually admire Avery Johnson, and like some of the players, so to diss them because of my feelings about Cuban means that I'm putting blame (or dislike, in this case) on the team rather than Fat Mouth ... uh, Cuban. ¿Entiendes?

[Moai]

You oversimplify everything, and then complain that it's too simple to be reasonable.

 

All of religion is bad because people have used religion to justify violence.

 

Prayer as a practice is ineffective because it doesn't work the way I think the Bible dictates that it does.

 

No religions can be correct because they don't all agree with each other.

 

Christianity is, in context, a fulfillment of a covenant between Ancient Jews and their God. To ignore the history of Judaism is to pretend that Jesus just appeared one day and took everyone by surprise.

 

It is possible that one religion can be correct, but it is not possible that none of them are correct. Given the track record of religious thought and the evidence for it, I am not losing sleep about any of them.

 

Funny how rabbis, who know Hebrew at least as well as you claim to, are firm in their interpretation that Jesus was not, and could not have been, the son of god.

 

The reason a Christian can benefit (not necessarily does benefit, but can benefit) from reading Leviticus is the same way an American can benefit from reading the Articles of Confederation.

 

That's a stretch. I am sure that someone somewhere may get a benefit from the details of how to sacrifice animals or how to treat your daughter after she was raped, but it is beyond me.

 

I realize this. My point is not that you are obligated to prove God doesn't exist. My point is only that you haven't, despite claiming that you have.

 

Again, I cannot. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. I can't make it any simpler than that. However, if specific, testable claims about god are asserted, one can examine evidence to see if those claims are valid. If they aren't, we can surmise that the god said to exist does not. That doesn't mean another god may not exist, but let's see evidence for him, then. Since none of them have any, what can we conclude?

 

I'm not asking you to accept my assertions, I'm just pointing out that the thing you're saying you're doing isn't actually happening.

 

Never once have I attempted to share my faith with you, because it's clear you're not interested in hearing about it.

 

Then why keep bringing it up? Since you say biblical literalism is ridiculous, we obviously agree, so why are you even posting? To say that your faith is different and not defend it?

 

For example, you have taken me to task for not providing scriptural interpretations of passages you have misinterpreted. It's not because I'm not capable of it. I know Greek, Hebrew, and a detailed history of most world religions. I'm familiar with hundreds of commentaries on the Gospels and the Old Testament.

 

I simply realize that you're not interested in learning more about the passages that you know very little about. People have tried to tell you their interpretation, and you've dismissed it, saying, basically, "Well millions of others disagree with you"--How can I argue with that? More importantly, why would I bother?

 

Sure I am. that's how I ended up an atheist in the first place. You, rather arrogantly I would say, keep saying that you know better, and that your advanced understanding has given you insights that others lack. Not only that, you consider their interpretations irrelevant. I don't think that their interpretations are irrelevant, as their interpretations lead them to very specific conclusions about the world around them. And these conclusions lead them to regressive and dangerous ends.

 

You seem to think that your position is so obvious that everyone knows it, but that is substantially not the case. I repeat that millions disagree with for the simple fact that it is not only true, they are out there and they are voting.

 

If I quote a scripture, and an interpretation shared by millions of dedicated believers, and your response is "the Bible doesn't say that." You do not then describe what the Bible does say and why these people are ridiculous and absurd (your words), you just say they are and that's that. As if your word--with no credentials given--has more merit than anyone else's. Jerry Falwell disagreed with you, and he was an ordained minister in the Baptist Church. D. James Kennedy disagrees with you and he is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church. They devoted their lives to bible study, but you know better than they. Millions watch their programs each week, avidly eating up their interpretations of scripture, all of whom are sadly misguided, according to you.

 

I started this thread addressing their views of prayer, as I stated previously. You jumped in and accused me of strawman tactics, because YOU disagree with them but still see prayer as valid. As if yours is the only version, and the only one people believe in. That is not so.

 

I would be happy to discuss your version of prayer, but you won't. You just say I'm wrong to accept that they interpret the Bible in a certain way, for whatever reason.

 

Likewise, all you have done is make assertions.

 

Nope. Read the thread again.

 

I also don't care. In my mind, the fact that people are getting it wrong in large numbers does not indict the whole belief system; additionally, such a belief (which you clearly hold, or at least rely on) is not logically sound.

 

You cannot separate the two. Their interpretation IS their belief system. You cannot seem to grasp that.

 

You're not, but this is a backpedal. You're not simply examining the fundamentalist viewpoint and finding it to be invalid. You're saying, basically, that because they're wrong, everyone's wrong, and it's not logically sound.

 

I haven't had the chance to address anything else because you won't post anything of substance.

 

Because I think it's ridiculous to say that prayer is bad for everyone simply because fundamentalists can't move mountains.

 

Prayer is only bad when it provides enough of a false hope to endanger people. In point of fact, it is meaningless because ti doesn't do anything. I'll bet yours doesn't either, but I have no idea since you won't even state what your idea of prayer IS. And, unlike you, I am not going to make snap judgments about your education level, what that notion of prayer is or anything else because I don't know enough about you to do so. Good for you to not feel limited in that way.

 

Moose knows that I don't approve of his scriptural scholarship. As far as I know, we get along anyway, because the bottom line is I don't care about how he chooses to worship God. Additionally, I don't care that you don't worship God. It's more that you're claiming to accomplish logical feats that you are not, in fact, accomplishing.

 

It isn't a "logical" feat. If someone says that prayers are answered, I can examine evidence. I have, and there is no evidence that is the case. It is that simple. Beyond that, you have claimed that the Fundamentalist version of prayer is wrong, so maybe I am doing it badly, maybe I am not, but my point is correct.

 

You can be apathetic about things all you want, but I am not, and I have the right to be. I will take this up with him, but there are very specific things that he accepts that are hindering our advancement and endangering people. You may not care, but I do. I live in this society, and I would like it to be safer, more rational, and have our decisions based on something other than what a 2,000 year old book says--interpreted correctly or not.

 

Why bother?

 

You'll simply say that other people don't agree with me. You might even mention that they kill one another. Believe me, if I felt the slightest bit that you had a genuine interest in the spiritual beliefs of other people, I would share mine. But not when your only interest is in obstacles in a debate.

 

Then why are you even posting? All you are doing is jumping, saying that I am wrong, and leaving it at that.

 

You know what? Fine. You're right. I'm wrong. Your version of prayer works, it's awesome, and I am amazed that I doubted it for a second. Can I go now? Can I go and talk to other who do not share your view now?

 

I'm beginning to think you deify the red herring.

 

You make outrageous claims--that no prayer is ever answered, that prayer itself is a harmful practice, and that you know God does not exist.

 

I never said prayer is a harmful practice, but the earnest belief in prayer is dangerous. I have posted evidence of that being the case.

 

I am not aware of one single time when a prayer for something outside of probability has ever been answered. Moreover, why are some answered and some not? Why are you spared death in the thunderstorm but the infant next door was not?

 

Oh, wait, its god's will. Which is beyond our understanding, yet it is exactly that understanding that leads you to believe that prayer works. Nice circular reasoning.

 

You then talk about the evils of organized religion and the intellectual errancy of fundamentalists as if that's evidence for any of your claims. It's not.

 

Sure it is. It is excellent evidence for my position.

 

I stand by what I said. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible.

 

The Bible predates the modern concept of homosexuality--that someone would be born with a natural desire towards romance of the same sex. This is a concept that people still have trouble understanding, so it's not surprising that Paul, Timothy, or the Levites didn't understand it either.

 

What? What does that have to do with anything? Does it bother you that people are being discriminated against because of this interpretation? It does me.

 

Maybe you can because you have a cursory knowledge of the Bible. I can't because I actually care. When I read the New Testament, it's in its original Greek. When I read the Old Testament, it's in its original Hebrew.

 

Anyway, if you're curious, there is no Ancient Greek word for homosexuality.

 

I don't care. Read the Bible in whatever language you want. Other believers do not have the benefit of your extensive knowledge of ancient languages. They have to rely on men who translate it for them. And, according to you, they are doing a terrible job at it. Why don't you get a job as a translator and correct all these errors these guys are making? Oh, right, you don't care.

 

I also don't care what the Ancient Greeks thought about homosexuality. I am not living in Ancient Greece. I don't care what the Ancient Egyptians thought about beetles, I don't care what the Ancient Hebrews thought about slavery. None of those things will aid me one iota in making judgments about morality in the 21st century.

 

Why the red herrings? I'm not an apologist for the haters.

 

I'm merely not letting you use guilt by association fallacies to indict the entire practice of prayer, nor the belief that a God exists.

 

Then post a version of prayer that works. Otherwise, leave me alone.

 

That's my damn point, and it goes just as well for homophobics and misogynists and warmongers and anyone else who has used scripture to justify their actions. The fact that they are armed with Bible verses is not evidence that the Bible (or religion in general) motivated them to act.

 

Yes, it is. The truth is, you don't know what it's like to REALLY believe in god. They do, and they acted (and act) on it.

 

You could believe that the Bible made Martin Luther hate women, if you want to. It does make him easier to indict. You just can't claim that you have evidence for it, when it's just as likely that he already hated women, and found scriptural verses to support his position.

 

Oh, but shouldn't you examine everything critically?

 

Possible, but I doubt it. Why are there verses in the Bible that can be interpreted that way in the first place?

 

I have mentioned this before, but here it goes again: When an anesthetic was developed that would give women relief in childbirth, it was opposed by the clergy because it was their belief that god made childbirth painful as punishment, and to relieve the pain would be going against god's will. According to you, they already wanted women to suffer, they just used Bible verses to back their position up. Don't think so.

 

Moreover, if someone holds a position and they use Bible verses to support it, I reject that as a reason and ask for more. Believers would not. "You must burn witches!" Oh, ok. The Bible says so. None of these people have the benefit of reading Greek or Hebrew.

 

Anecdotal evidence is not logical support. You made the assertion that the Bible causes homophobia, but you cannot support it soundly.

 

It doesn't cause all homophobia, but it causes most of it. And it causes the most rabid forms of it. I have supported that, and can provide much more evidence if you want. The page I linked wasn't anecdotal, by the way. it was a discussion of Scripture, and why their interpretation of it was right, and one like yours is wrong. But you didn't address that, right?

 

You mean why do they get the most time in the public sphere to talk about it?

 

People find them interesting, I guess.

 

And most people agree with them. And that's why it's dangerous, and why I talk about it.

 

Because you don't have evidence to support that claim. Again, I'm only holding you to your own standard. If we take people at their word, then God must surely exist. If we require evidence to support a claim, you have to do better than you have done.

 

That's just nonsense.

 

I refuse to participate in your theatre of misdirection, especially when I already know your response.

 

If I wasted my time on a long drawn out explanation, you'd simply dismiss my beliefs as not corresponding to many other people's beliefs--would you not?

 

You already are participating, for one. Now that I think about it, maybe I should post in Hebrew so you can understand it.

 

I am addressing the claims of certain believers out there. You disagree with their interpretation, and somehow think that means I can't discuss said interpretation, or show that such is unsound.

 

I have no idea why you are even posting in the first place. If you want to discuss your version of prayer I'd love to, but beyond that leave me alone. Defend the Fundamentalist view (or even one a little less literal) or stop what you're doing. In point of fact, you really aren't doing anything anyway.

[HokeyReligions]

Quote:

Believers do not need to prove God exists. For them He does and that is all that matters to their immortal soul. Do they want to spread the word and encourage others to believe - sure. If you find something that makes sense to you, brings you peace or contentment and joy - wouldn't you want that same thing for others? Especially for those you love? I wish I could share my feelings for animals with everyone and that everyone could feel the same joy and empathy and love I feel for them. I have introduced some to the fact (and yes I believe it to be FACT) that animals have feelings and are not just ornaments for the backs of pickup trucks and it HAS made a difference to them - and to the animals they have.

 

Yes, believers DO need to prove god exists. Why be a Christian and not a Hindu? Do I go to church on Saturday or Sunday? Do I pray facing East or does it not matter? Can I eat pork? How do I know? Oh, right, you have a book that tells you the answers to all those questions...

 

I disagree with the need to prove God exists on a social or human level. But I think I understand what you are saying. Whatever book a person follows is a guidepost. I can't speak from an understanding of other religions, but from a Christian perspective I don't think that God is in control of human societies or what path a person follows in regards to their society or their government, but in their own hearts and minds only. God doesn't live on earth, He supposedly lives inside the soul or spirit or ka or whatever one wants to call the part of them that will live outside the human body after the body dies. That is God's focus. The Bible is a guide to how to be more God-like, or Christ-like while we are here, in preparation for our eternity. It is a rule-book of sorts that serves as a goal to strive for, all the while knowing that it is impossible to reach those because of human limitations such as government, environment, human thought and social conditioning. The goal is unattainable in our current form - but by following the 'rules' as best we can, we may hope to reach that goal in the next life.

 

Your feelings for animals is not based on faith. You have evidence for such a belief. There is more evidence coming in every day. There still is no evidence for any god anywhere.

 

You and I both know that "sharing" one's religion goes a little beyond something that brings joy and happiness. With religion comes ideas of natural and unnatural behavior, and the concept of sin. Religion makes people think that they can reach into the privacy of others' homes and tell them who they can get naked with and how, or if they can smoke a particular plant or not. That's just two things, there are many, many more.

There are people of faith working to make the US a theocracy RIGHT NOW. They think that god gave the US to Christians and that we should be a Christian nation, and that our laws should be based on the Bible.

That is not the fault of religion, but of those imperfect beings who make human judgements based on the world they live in and their interpretaion of the Bible. Yes, there are many who use the beliefs of others to twist and attempt to control - some because they honestly believe it to be the right thing to do, and others for more selfish reasons. But it is the individual or the group that is doing it and using religion as a tool, and doing a poor job of it.

 

 

Quote:

I didn't read that. I have my own personal account of finding a dog. I'm still agnostic, but at the time I wondered if that experience was from God. We rescued a dog from a parking lot. He was cut up pretty bad and tied to a fence so he couldn't even sit down without choking. We took him to the vet and got him some care. I thought we had a new home for him, but they backed out. We found another home for him and took him there. We got a call the next day saying he got out of their yard. I left work and we went searching for him. I printed a huge banner and after many hours of searching, I was taping the banner to a large sign in a church front yard. Just as I finished putting it up I heard my husband say "Honey - there he is" We found him, in a church yard. We brought him back to his new people and helped them secure the fence. He was happy and loved after that. Interpretation could be the hand of God at work.

 

Such an interpretation is morally bankrupt. To say that a god who has infinite power is working hard to save this dog while infants are dying of leukemia and he does nothing is sick. It amazes me that people don't see that.

I don't agree. I can't speak for God, and I know of no human that really can, but infinite power does not equate to total power or control. Healing one and not another may be part of a plan that we, as mere humans, cannot comprehend or begin to explain. Perhaps it is part of that battle that rages on between God & Satan. Perhaps the young who die are being spared a life of torment or simply because God takes them when He deems it is their time. Perhaps their suffering is a sacrifice that we are forced to accept - God is not a comfy grandpa that will never let us feel pain. He supposedly sacrificed His only Son in a horrible way, why would we expect Him to treat the rest of us any different? Mankind tends to 'rate' the powers or blessings that are bestowed on individuals in a way that God probably never would. It is not up to us to say who should live or die or the manner of our deaths. I don't know God's rating system, or even if He has one, for this world.

Quote:

The Bible is a metaphore. Ask and you shall receive - ask honestly and be open to acceptance that Jesus died for your sins - and you will believe it - that knowledge and relief will be inside you. Jesus or self-hypnosis? Who knows. If one believes its Jesus, well - maybe it is. The key is to separate what God states He wants for his followers from what the world has established in societies. Winning a lottery would be great - but that alone is not going to open one's heart to God. From my understanding God doesn't deal in trade. Prayers are not for material things, and for those suffering the prayer would be to be able to withstand it in this life, not necessarily to conquer it.

 

Again, that may not be your understanding, but the book says differently. The passage in Matthew cannot honestly be made to be metaphorical.

 

And prayer IS for material things. That is the whole point. Otherwise, what is prayer? When I lie awake thinking am I praying? I have been to lots of different churches, and during every service there was prayer, and people prayed for material things. The answered prayer I read about on these forums was a prayer for something material.

I don't know the mind of God, but I think that prayer for material things is a Human creation, not a Godly one. Prayer for guidance, love, courage, etc. and to accept God and do right by Him - to the best of our abilities is. I might pray for a job so I could make enough money to keep my house and that prayer might be answered the way I want it. But what is the real answer? It could be that the material things I asked for, and received, would help me to handle the stresses of life better and in turn be more open to God's love and acceptance of his care for me. When I found that dog I wrote a letter to that church to tell them - because of something someone else said to me at the time. My husband and I went there (my husband is a Christian - I am not). I went though because hubby wanted to and because the story - even though it came from an agnostic like me - made some other people feel better. As one person said to me "when we see everyday miracles like you finding the dog, it reaffirms our hope that God is with us and will care for us" and I thought that was rather sweet. They saw an "everyday miracle" and someone who was near the end of their hope-rope found some strength because of that story. It didn't matter that I didn't believe - what mattered is they did. That hope may not have lasted, I don't know, but their faith got a boost. Because of a dog. That's what I meant about the dog and the luekemia patient being different. Perhaps that hope from the dog's 'miracle' gave spiritual strength to someone fighting for their human health. Who knows. God chooses his miracles - we don't and we can't even begin to understand His reasoning.

 

Moreover, "thou shalt not suffer a which to live" is a metaphor for what exactly? And while many may now see that as a metaphor, others in the past did not. How is that people now are able to interpret the Bible correctly (as metaphor) and yet some of the greatest thinkers in the Christian tradition could not?

Because the world we live in is different. We can study history, but unless we lived in that society - brought up the way they were brought up - we can never fully understand. Young people today can't imagine what a shameful scandal it was in the 1950s and before, for people to openly have sex with multiple partners. Society sees it differently now and its accepted. Societies change the interpretations of the Bible to fit their own growth and desires, even though the words have not changed. As human's we are doing the best we can with it - and that includes zealots and extremists.

 

Quote:

The prayer would not be for release so much as for the ability to withstand the illness and pain for God. For understanding that it is God's plan - even though we don't know the reasons behind it. Release will come eventually no matter the faith. I think it was better for mom to pray for release And for the ability to withstand her physical pain because it gave her spiritual comfort and because it gave her the time she needed to let go of worldly things. A quick painless death could be considered a 'cheat' in a way because the spirit is not getting the time it may need to come to grips with death. If I died right now I would go missing the books I like to read, and the movies I like, and my house, and my dogs, and my family. If I have a long illness in which to prepare spiritually I might come to accept the letting go of earthly things and be able to help my family cope after I'm gone because I'll let them know that I'm ready and it's OK. Mom's suffering was harder on me most of the time, then it was on her. I've heard of many others who deal with long illnesses in the family being the same way - and our Hospice workers said the same thing - at the end the comfort seems to come from the person who is dying and given to the people left behind. Often there is survivor's guilt associated with this.

 

Then why doesn't everyone die a lingering death? The man killed in a car accident did not get the benefit of preparing his spirit for death. Why not?

 

Beyond that, there are people who wish to avoid a lingering death, but they are prohibited from suicide because of the religious faith of others.

I don't know. That would be knowing the mind of God and humans are not capable of that. I could say that I know what it feels like to be black and discriminated against, and I could cite examples where I was discriminated against in the same way as a black person, but ask a black person and they are going to say that I don't really 'get it' because I don't share the same racial and cultural history that is part of that person's whole makeup. There is no way to explain it - it is something that simply 'is'. Common experiences, shared environment, same lifestyle - I still wouldn't be able to totally understand the 'black experience'. I know that suicide is illegal (man's laws) but one who wants to is not prohibited because of other's religious beliefs - if someone wants to commit suicide they will, or they won't because of their own beliefs (religious or not).

 

 

Yes, but not with the same sick bodies as before. If reincarnation is true then it just another form of rebirth.

 

And you could come back as a roach, or deformed, or what have you, all based on your prior performance.

Still - it is rebirth.

 

Quote:

Faith has no evidence. It is not expected to have evidence. That is a human and worldly expectation - not a spiritual/faithful one.

 

It is true, faith has no evidence. Yet it makes people certain about things in the natural world, and makes them certain about areas of human behavior.

Yes. That is the human part.

 

 

Quote:

But what body? I don't take that literally. It can heal - that has been documented, but is it God-healing or something of our own creation - that we can heal ourselves through an amazing focus of our minds that is attributed to God. I read that "body" as a whole, not an individual body. A body or group or congregation of believers - their souls can be healed of hatred, bigotry, unbelief, sins. A 'body' of people, not an individual body.

 

So Jesus healing the blind in the Bible is a metaphor? Him casting demons into pigs is a metaphor? Sorry, but that is disingenuous. The amazing focus of the mind you talk about has not been documented reliably, in point of fact.

See the error of his ways perhaps. Removing demons into an animal that can be removed from the area - removing hatred from the heart, sin from the mind perhaps. The focus of the mind has been documented in some areas - but that too is open to interpretation and a faith of the humann potential. Just because it is not prooved yet does not mean it never will be.

 

There are about 150 million Americans who don't agree with you about the healing metaphor. Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff makes millions each year off the fact that it isn't a metaphor. As I have mentioned before, people withhold medicine or don't seek medical treatment because they don't see it as a metaphor.

Yes, and there are millions who would agree or would agree with part and disagree with part. Those who claim to 'heal' are human, not God, and practice this for their own reasons. They are not (or should not be) worshipped. Those who believe in them do so because it is their choice. Perhaps the faith that one has heals them in spite of 'faith healers' not because of them. Perhaps it is the power of their own mind, that is so strong they cannot accept it as part of themselves. No one knows either way.

 

There is a passage in the Bible about believers being immune to poison and snake bite, as well as healing.

Mark 16:18

“They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

 

Again, it is torturing the text to see this as a metaphor, but that is beside the point. There are people--millions of them--who think that this is literally true. There are people in Appalachia who drink poison and handle snakes to show the depth of their faith. And they die. George Hensley, the man who started this particular cult, was bitten by a snake, refused medical treatment, and he died. So much for faith being harmless.

Faith is harmless - human stupidity is not.

 

 

Quote:

Perhaps there are many "Heavens" or perhaps God is the same and it is belief in Him - no matter what He is called or what practice worships and that death and Heaven is simply being where God is and there it doesn't matter what organized religion was the path to Him. I was raised in a predominatly Christian country and society so I'm more familiar with that than with other religions.

 

Maybe. There is no evidence one way or the other. But there are people who make very specific claims about how to get to Heaven, what it means, and what society should be like. You know it, and I know it.

Yes. Human claims based on their own (real or imagined or misguided) beliefs. It doesn't mean we have to follow them.

 

nd I am glad you are not angry, and I did not mean for my comments to cause you any discomfort, so please accept my apology in that case. As I said, I do not for one second believe that, but there are people on these very forums who do.

No, not angry. You made clear arguments for your POV and I respect that. On some points I don't agree, but that is not saying "I'm right and you are wrong" or that "you are right and I am wrong" I'm open to different ideas and opinions and feel that there is room for all - including disagreeing on points and interpretations.

[quankanne]

*smile* ... this is a curious statement: Prayer is only bad when it provides enough of a false hope to endanger people. In point of fact, it is meaningless because ti doesn't do anything.

 

is prayer bad for X reason only, or is it meaningless for whatever reason it is employed? And who decides these things – the person doing the praying or the outsider who understands nothing of what's going on inside the one making the petition? If the former, why make such a stink about it? If it's the latter, how does the outsider decide the value of prayer if he isn't doing the actual praying, and why does he get to ride herd over someone's private conversations?

[Moai]

It is possible that one religion can be correct, but it is not possible that none of them are correct. Given the track record of religious thought and the evidence for it, I am not losing sleep about any of them.

 

I miswrote the above. It should be, "it is possible that one of them is correct, but it is not possible that all of them are correct."

[Moai]

So...in a sense, since I'm a believer, I'm irrational? This is your way of insulting us? The world becoming more dangerous, and knowlege increasing is prophecy being fullfilled. We, (believers), have THE most RATIONAL outlook on these things than non-believers, yet you insist we're irrational.....hmmmmm.So the oxygen you just breathed in....supplied by plant life isn't sufficient? Here....I hope this makes you laugh:

 

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.

"Tonto, look up and tell me what you see."

Tonto replies, "Me see millions of stars."

"What does that tell you?" asks The Lone Ranger.

Tonto ponders for a minute.

"Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.

Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.

Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.

Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.

Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.

What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?"

The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.

"Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent."

 

The above joke is a good lesson in missing the obvious. Chances are that you were surprised by the Lone Ranger's response. However, the first sentence of the joke tells you that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were camping in a tent. It should have been clear at Tonto's first response that he was missing the obvious.

 

I assume you to mean that god is obvious. You and I both know that is not so. To you, Jesus is obvious. The Bible being the Word of God is obvious. That is not obvious to the 5.1 billion or so non-Christians on this planet who do not share your view.

 

I have asked before, and I'll ask again: Why are you not Muslim? I doubt you lose any sleep over the idea that the Koran is the REAL Word Of God. How come? Seriously. How did you determine that the Bible is the Word of God and the Koran isn't? Did you read the Koran? Did you study Islamic doctrine to see if it fit with your moral view (as Diamonds&Rust insists everyone does)? Apply those questions to every faith that exists on Earth. You reject them all, and probably for good, reasonable reasons. Even a cursory look at the assertions in others' religious books show them to be nothing but the dreams of primitives. All I do is apply the same reasoning you use to dismiss their god-books to look at, and reject, yours.

 

Likewise, those who have already decided that God does not exist and that all processes must have a naturalistic explanation, do not see the obvious evidence that the universe was designed, rather than happened by chance.

The Universe being designed is not obvious. While it may appear designed from a certain point of view, appearance of design is not evidence of design. Wouldn't a Universe that can support our form of life have to appear to be designed just for us? Given that 99% of every life form that has ever existed is extinct makes me wonder exactly how well-designed for life our planet is, let alone the Universe.

 

Not only that, but to assert a designer, you now must explain who or what designed the designer. Ad infinitum. If god always existed and did not require a designer, why can't the Universe be the same? Also, god has no use as an explanation, in any meaningful way. "How did we get here?" "God did it." And inquiry stops.

 

Here's an analogy for you: "Here's a subtle point that you may have wondered about: If we look out into the Universe and every galaxy we see is moving away from us, doesn't that mean that we are at the center of the Universe? The obvious answer seems to be 'yes', but actually the answer is 'no'. Hopefully the following analogy will explain why. Image a loaf of raisin bread baking in the oven. As the bread bakes it gets bigger, and every raisin moves away from every other raisin. Now imagine that you are sitting on one of the raisins (ignore the heat of the oven). All the other raisins are moving away from you, so you might conclude that you are at the center of the loaf of bread. But if you were on a different raisin you would also see every raisin moving away from you and would also conclude that you are at the center of the loaf. The same thing is happening in the Universe. No matter where you are in the Universe, every galaxy you see is moving away from you. That's why astrophysicists say that you shouldn't talk about the center of the Universe; there really is no center of the Universe."

 

See? From our point of view, it should seem that we are at the center of the Universe, but we are not. Because it LOOKS like we are doesn't mean we are. Just because it looks (to some) as if the Universe is designed that doesn't mean it is.

 

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

 

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves." - Glanz, J. 1999. AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY MEETING: Hawking Blesses the Accelerating Universe. Science 284: 34-35.

 

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

 

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age." - The Origin-of-Life Prize from the Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.How about two or three.....and MORE evidence?

 

Sounds reasonable. The best information we have is that the Universe is 15 billion years old. Your first paragraph is disingenuous, because the men in question are just hypothesizing. String theory explains a great many things (I don't completely understand it), but most in the field consider it to be a religious explanation and not a scientific one, i.e. there is no evidence for it. So they reject it. It works, it makes sense in light of other things we know, but there is no evidence for it. And it continues.

 

And it is disingenuous to suggest that Hawking hypothesizing about the Nature of the Universe, etc. means that he is asserting what he is saying to be fact. He isn't, he said he wasn't, and nobody involved thinks he was. Just because Steven Hawking says something doesn't mean it is true. Now, if he writes a paper and provides evidence for his position, everyone else will look at his stuff and try to prove him wrong. If they can't, his explanation is accepted. And even then, people will still try to attack it.

 

The process is not dogmatic, and that is what is so all-fired cool about it. Nobody accepts anything based on who says it. It is all about evidence. And thinking like that has gotten us to where we are now--computers, cell phones, walking on the moon, small pox vaccines, and on and on and on. We get more answers every day.

 

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." - Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

 

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." - Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.

 

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." - Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

 

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." - Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).See the above......I rest my case

Rest your case why? I never said that all scientists everywhere reject god, I only said that 97% of them do. And that is a huge number. Clearly, practicing science does not "obviously" lead people to believe in God. Quite the opposite, it seems.

 

Also, in just a cursory look into your quotes above, I could find only one reference to Alan Sandage being a Christian. So, if you are using this argument from authority (which is fallacious), if the others were deists or Muslim would it follow that you would have to be, too?

 

I do appreciate the quotes, though. I found a very cool online discussion involving one of Ellis' essay. Good stuff so far.

 

Here is a quote, from the discussion. Sadly, I cannot give proper citation as it was part of a conversation and the copy I am reading doesn't list it.

 

"Throughout his essay, Ellis makes much of hope (and faith), which he contrasts against rationality. This is, I think, the key to understanding his motivation, why he is deeply concerned about the struggle between science and religion – he is battling with a problem that is largely of his own creation. And being a highly intelligent chap, it is a worthy problem, namely, invoking the supernatural. He makes (I can only assume) the positive claim that the supernatural exists, and then proceeds to tackle the bugbears it engenders. Whilst I agree with him that the natural world exists, I see utterly no reason to think the supernatural realm exists – other than in the beliefs and hopes of the human mind. I wonder what the reasons are why Ellis believes in both the natural and the supernatural. The god-concept is redundant, simply having zero explanatory power."

 

....If that's true......then read this study:http://http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf

Yep. Heard of it. Here is an excellent response to just such "experimentation" from www.skepdic.com:

 

"A miracle may be defined as a violation of the laws of nature through willful intervention. By asking an SB [super-natural being] or energy to interfere with the ordinary course of natural events, one is requesting a miracle. To believe in miracles, as David Hume argued several centuries ago, is to go against the universal experience that there is an inexorable order and lawfulness to our sense perceptions. All our rules of reasoning are based upon this experience. We would have to abandon them to believe in miracles. Likewise, we would have to abandon any hope of experiencing, much less understanding, the world we perceive, if it were possible that any event could follow any other event based on the will of SBs or our ability to magically affect mysterious energies. Only if our experience of events following other events is constant and consistent can we perceive and understand the world. And, if you don’t like Hume’s approach, there is Kant’s: only if we experience events as causal can we have any experience at all.

 

Testing causal hypotheses would be impossible if SBs or human intentions could directly interfere with the course of nature. Scientists test causal hypotheses. Thus, for a scientist to do a causal test on intercessory prayer would be absurd. So, what are we to make of those scientists who design controlled, double-blind studies to test the effectiveness of intercessory prayer? For example, what should we make of studies such as Elisabeth Targ's studies on distance healing? The National Institutes of Health granted Targ hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to investigate an absurdity (Gardner 2001). However, she died of brain cancer in 2002, before her latest study was completed, despite the efforts of many to engage spirits and energies to intervene on her behalf. [One of her studies has since been discredited by Po Bronson who detailed her improprieties in mining the data. See the Sicher-Targ healing distance report and A Prayer Before Dying, Wired Dec. 2002.] Others pursuing a similar chimera include Dr. Randolph Byrd, Dr. William S. Harris and Dr. Herbert Benson, and Dr. Mitch Krucoff."

But that still isn't GOOD enough for you! Even the obvious doesn't phase you......how would "indirect observation" sway you? You're the type that insists on tangibles......"We"? No.....YOU!:

http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2007/05/24/evidence-that-humans-are-evolving-is-not-evidence-for-human-evolution/I absolutely agree with atheists and others who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, and even in the name of Christianity.

I read the essay you linked, and it is the same old Creationist garbage. For a real discussion of "macroevolution" (in point of fact, there is just "evolution") I urge you to go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

 

And yes, it is true that many horrible things have done in the name of god in general and Christianity specifically. And they still are.

 

BUT, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. If we look at the history of democide (which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder, but not war-dead) prior to the 20th century, we find that millions of people were killed by people groups who wanted the other people groups eliminated.

Of course human beings did it. That is not the point. The point is the reasons why the human beings did it. What evidence did they have that those others needed to be slaughtered?

 

Look at witch burning, for example (I'll ignore a few assumptions for brevity). First, one must accept that there is such a thing as a witch. Then, one must figure out a way to deal with said witch. Oh, here we go, we have a book written by god that gives us the answer right here: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Not only does god say that there is such a thing as a witch (which is more than enough evidence for us!) he says we have to kill witches. The books that the witch-burners used to rationalize their behavior still exist. They cite chapter and verse.

 

As I mentioned in another post, if you read Aquinas he says we should kill heretics outright, while Augustine thinks we should just torture them. If religion and their interpretation of it is not the reason for their conclusions, they just wanted to torture and murder people and were looking for an excuse. I doubt that is so, but even if it was, happily they have the Bible to give them all the evidence they needed.

 

Number one, yes....I do take that literally, and I KNOW it to be true. Number 2, Diamonds&Rust, to my knowledge hasn't called me ridiculous, however, he's not the one with the agenda here......you are.

Yes he did. He said that biblical literalism is ridiculous, and also absurd. Why don't you take him to task for that? It seems when I say that god-belief is irrational I am calling YOU irrational (which I am not), so why the double standard? At least I respect your beliefs enough to discuss them, and listen to your reasons for them, agree with you or not. He just declares them absurd and that's that.

 

By the way, according to him you can't interpret the Bible correctly, because you can't read Greek or Hebrew. He has also said that the Bible shouldn't be taken as the word of god. He disagrees with you every bit as much as I do, yet you focus on me and not him? Why? I at least tell you how I arrived at my conclusions so we can discuss it.

 

I don't see why you have a hangup on the word "agenda." I am here first and foremost for my own entertainment, and secondly because I would like to convince others of my point of view. Why is that a bad thing? Don't you do the same thing?

 

You may be able to solve a little dilemma that is going on here. Do you support gay marriage? If not, why not? You have my word that I will not be critical of your reasoning or your position, I am just curious as to how you arrived at your position, whatever it is.

 

As Quank put it.....God didn't sit down and write the Bible. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God. There isn't one word in the Scriptures that was placed without His intervention.

Which amounts to the same thing. And god did write the Ten Commandments himself, on stone tablets. Right? So the thing about stoning someone who works on Saturday was inspired by him, the descriptions of how to sacrifice animals were written by him, and on and on. That's fine by me, but an extremely learned man like Diamonds&Rust thinks that idea is ridiculous and absurd.

 

You claim that I take the Bible literally. There are some parts that I do, because that IS THE CONTEXT. You like to put words in my mouth, then turn them against fellow posters just to take the attention off of you......nice lil' trick there.....I see it all over this thread now.....

I do? Where? You just said that you take the Bible literally. Ok. Which parts are literal and which parts aren't? How can you tell? how did you arrive at your conclusion? Is Matthew 7:7 meant to be taken literally?

 

Beyond that, you think that his assertion (and others here) that Jesus isn't the only way is calling YOU wrong. Demonstrably so. You KNOW that you are right. You said so above. Why not discuss that with them as you are your position with me?

 

And what about my questions regarding my conversion experience and the Holy Spirit? Do you now retract your claims about what weighs on my mind heavily, or what? And, who is putting words in whose mouth? Who is extrapolating on insufficient evidence?

 

You have said yourself that you take the Bible literally. Then, you claim that parts you do and parts you don't. You can do whatever you want, but I can only go by what you say to determine what you believe. There are 2500 versions of Christianity. Am I supposed to just guess which one you agree with?

[Moai]

*smile* ... this is a curious statement: Prayer is only bad when it provides enough of a false hope to endanger people. In point of fact, it is meaningless because ti doesn't do anything.

 

is prayer bad for X reason only, or is it meaningless for whatever reason it is employed? And who decides these things – the person doing the praying or the outsider who understands nothing of what's going on inside the one making the petition?

 

All well and good if the feeling stays INSIDE the person praying. But we both know it rarely does. And again, it isn't PRAYER that is bad, is the BELIEF that intercessory prayer works. And the reliance on that.

 

If the former, why make such a stink about it? If it's the latter, how does the outsider decide the value of prayer if he isn't doing the actual praying, and why does he get to ride herd over someone's private conversations?

 

I'll paraphrase Sam Harris again: When Katrina was going to hit, what did prayer do? Not one single prayer warned anyone of the coming storm, science did that. And consider the elderly couple, devout their whole lives, certain that god would protect them who fled to their attic and prayed for aid, even as the water rose and they drowned. Can anyone honestly say that they weren't just talking to an imaginary friend?

 

Can we not say that they died needlessly? Can we not say that those who attend Hinn's services are being used because of this belief? And isn't it tragic, and shouldn't we do whatever we can to prevent it from continuing?

[Moai]

These dumb little things aren't seen as so dumb to billions of people. they are killing each other over them right now. Man doesn't choose religion to divide things, the books do it for them.

 

yes, he does – he makes the ultimate decision on what he believes or disbelieves. The books are not bad or evil; people interpret what they've read, and act upon that interpretation. We've got people in this world who hate Jews, but call themselves good Christians ... without seeing the irony that the very man they purport to follow was Jewish!

 

Yep. And they support that idea using a passage from John. Why is that passage even in there, if the author did not feel the need to justify the subsequent persecution of Jews?

 

that's why I call them dumb little things – for all the varied beliefs and interpretations of things, they still can never encompass the mind or heart of God, yet we still argue to death what we interpret as right and wrong.

 

Which begs the question as to why god didn't know such would happen and never inspire a book in the first place.

 

GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE OR THE KORAN .... AAAAIIIIGGGHHHH. For the nth time, those holy books are an account of man's spiritual journey as evidenced by their relationship with a Supreme Being.

 

I just had to write a rather lengthy post to Moose, where he claims the Bible is divinely inspired. he says there is not one word in there that god didn't mean to be there. That amounts to the same thing as writing it himself, doesn't it?

 

Having read the Bible several times, I think that the Bible is much more than what you say it is. There are laws given in it, and there are accounts given in it that are to lead me to believe certain truths about god himself. It is not the story of the spiritual journey of anyone.

 

For example, what are we to make of Revelations?

 

Besides, if God actually sat down and wrote a book, who would take time to read it? And if millions read the book, how many would actually get the message he was trying to share? A very small handful is my guess, because everyone else would be busy trying to interpret the thing.

 

I am amazed at your conclusion here. If you had a book that was shown to be written by god, everyone would read it, and it would be perfect. And there would only be one way to interpret it. God, given that he is omniscient, would be able to communicate so succinctly it should be obvious on its face which book he wrote.

 

Imagine if he included some mathematics! What wonders we could read? He is the author of mathematics, right? No human ever could possibly know all that he knows about math. Yet, instead of even a cursory treatise on math, he goes into excruciating detail on how to sacrifice animals, and how to treat your slaves--if the Bible is divinely inspired.

 

Also, if the Bible isn't divinely inspired, why even read it? Why is it necessary to read the view of the world written by people who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe?

 

Again, everyone has their different take on things, but only God knows the human heart. I believe in the salvation offered by Christ with all my heart, and I understand that God is infinitely merciful towards us, giving us every chance possible to find our way home to him through whatever means we take.

 

Infinitely merciful? How do you arrive at this notion?

 

For some that will be through the path of Christ, for others, it's a direct commitment of faith to him. Ultimately, it's about finding our way to Him, and I believe that's the message Jesus wants us to "get."

 

Then why be so specific about what one must do in the various religious books? I am not aware of one that says, "be tolerant of all beliefs as they are all just different ways of knowing me." In fact, they all say exactly the opposite.

 

as I've said before, I love my faith, but I'm not going to pigeon-hole everyone into it, because God is bigger than any man-made vehicle used to get to him. And I get the feeling that many others feel the same way, but are so busy battling against the naysayers that they can only respond defensively about their belief system.

 

Naysayers from all camps, huh? There is more disagreement amongst believers than there is from without. I reject all notions of a super-being. Most reject all but one. And when the one they accept is different from their neighbors, in many cases they feel the need to rise up and kill the heretic. Turn on the news. That happened today. It happens all the time.

[Moai]

I told you I communicate with Holy Spirit everyday, but you don't believe me, and wants to send me to a mental hospital...

 

The Holy Spirit wants to put you in a mental hospital? I don't want to put you in a mental hospital.

 

see, I am happy I found God or God found me, thanks for God's mercy, but also I understand that people believe in God or not IS BETWEEN GOD AND THEM. Do I tell the good news and everybody would be saved? of course. but believing the good news or not is really a personal thing. NOT that we can change anybody or force anybody to believe, only

 

Do you support stem-cell research? Why or why not?

God can change people's heart:) and this kind of changing heart has its own time own season, I strongly believe seeds will grow out one day

 

Are you now more upset about genocide than you used to be? What about starvation, or childhood leukemia? How was your heart changed?

[Moai]

So...in a sense, since I'm a believer, I'm irrational? This is your way of insulting us? The world becoming more dangerous, and knowlege increasing is prophecy being fullfilled. We, (believers), have THE most RATIONAL outlook on these things than non-believers, yet you insist we're irrational.....hmmmmm.

 

I missed this part, sorry...

 

Believers have been saying that prophecy has been and is being fulfilled since Jesus died. And not one of them has been right. Hal Lindsay said that Jesus would be back by 1984, I think. He was positive that we were living in the End Times. We are still here.

 

He still says we are living in the End Times. 23 years later.

 

Jack Van Impe is certain that Jesus will be here any second now. He has the entire Bible committed to memory (which is impressive by any standard). I love his show and watch it as often as I can catch it. He has been on TV for over thirty years, I think.

 

Now, suddenly, you guys are right one the money? Feel free to explain why your prophecy interpreters are correct and those guys are wrong--or show that they weren't--and aren't wrong now, if you agree with them.

 

Do you accept the Rapture? Why or why not?

[Diamonds&Rust]

It is possible that one religion can be correct, but it is not possible that (all) of them are correct.

Agreed. But it also doesn't follow that all of them are entirely incorrect.

Funny how rabbis, who know Hebrew at least as well as you claim to, are firm in their interpretation that Jesus was not, and could not have been, the son of god.

Right. This is a difference between Christians and Jews. Religions disagree, therefore they're all wrong is not logical.

That's a stretch. I am sure that someone somewhere may get a benefit from... [flippant stuff] ...but it is beyond me.

Clearly. The Bible is only useful to you as a tool for argument. There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who are on the same page.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Nonsense. Science disproves things all the time. Pasteur designed an experiment which disproved abiogenesis.

However, if specific, testable claims about god are asserted, one can examine evidence to see if those claims are valid. If they aren't, we can surmise that the god said to exist does not.

First of all, your "specific, testable claims about God" are drawn from a literalist, non-academic approach to Biblical scholarship. I realize that many people also approach the Bible the exact same way, but your analysis only applies to them, and says nothing of the practice of prayer as a whole.

 

Second of all, testing specific claims of some religious people and finding them false does not disprove God. For example, to use evolutionary theory as an example, Lamarck put forth the idea of use-and-disuse and the inheritance of acquired traits. He was wrong about use/disuse, he was right about the inheritance of acquired traits. Following your line of thought, however, evolution (and heritable variation) is false simply because Lamarck got use/disuse wrong.

 

Since none of them have any, what can we conclude?

I can conclude that the existence of God is not a testable hypothesis.

 

Since you say biblical literalism is ridiculous, we obviously agree, so why are you even posting?

Because your thread is not merely about Biblical literalists getting it wrong, or you would have gotten a simple "I agree" from me, if anything at all.

 

You say that prayer is pointless but the evidence (prayer does not move mountains) does not adequately support that assertion. That's why I'm posting.

 

I repeat that millions disagree with for the simple fact that it is not only true, they are out there and they are

The fact that fundamentalist Christians vote in large numbers scares me too. It's not relevant to your claims about prayer though. You have endeavored to prove that prayer is pointless and that God doesn't exist, and you have done neither.

 

If I quote a scripture, and an interpretation shared by millions of dedicated believers, and your response is "the Bible doesn't say that."

I don't have any interest in engaging in a theological discussion with you, just like I wouldn't talk to an Amish guy about auto repair.

 

My point isn't that your scriptural interpretation is wrong. My point is that it's not good evidence. The fact that Biblical literalists are misguided does not make all believers misguided.

 

You know what? Fine. You're right. I'm wrong. Your version of prayer works, it's awesome, and I am amazed that I doubted it for a second. Can I go now? Can I go and talk to other who do not share your view now?

No one is forcing you to respond to what I am saying.

 

You made specific claims about prayer and God's existence. Your point was not that fundamentalists are wrong, your point was that all believers are wrong. All I'm maintaining is that debunking fundamentalism (fish in a barrel) does not adequately support your broad claims about all believers. It just doesn't.

 

The truth is, you don't know what it's like to REALLY believe in god.

 

Sure I do. I believe in God. I have no doubt that he exists.

 

No true Scotsman likes Cheerios!

 

Possible, but I doubt it. Why are there verses in the Bible that can be interpreted that way in the first place?

Doubting something and being able to disprove something are not equivalent.

 

"You must burn witches!" Oh, ok. The Bible says so.

Again, you take an overly simplistic view of history and pretend that all people of faith who ever acted did so only because of the Bible. Then you claim this as evidence that God doesn't exist. Then you have the audacity to criticize other people's logic.

 

I am addressing the claims of certain believers out there.

I don't have a problem with this, except that it's a backpedal.

 

You did not create a thread about Biblical literalists being misguided, even if that is what it has become.

 

And they support that idea using a passage from John. Why is that passage even in there, if the author did not feel the need to justify the subsequent persecution of Jews?

What? John was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. All of the evangelists were Jews.

 

Which begs the question as to why god didn't know such would happen and never inspire a book in the first place.

Many Christians believe in free will. Almost everyone knows that God didn't have veto power, editing rights, or any sort of quality control over the Bible. Inspiration and dictation are not the same thing.

 

Finding flaws in the Bible is not the same as finding flaws in believing in God. The Bible is not an encyclopedia of evidence for God, and treating it as such is a misdirection. The Bible is a tool for people who already believe in God, and like the study of anything, you get what you put into it.

[Moai]

I disagree with the need to prove God exists on a social or human level. But I think I understand what you are saying. Whatever book a person follows is a guidepost. I can't speak from an understanding of other religions, but from a Christian perspective I don't think that God is in control of human societies or what path a person follows in regards to their society or their government, but in their own hearts and minds only.

 

One should have to prove that god exists if we are to listen to him about what he says god wants. It is precisely what is going on in people's hearts and minds that effect larger society.

 

God doesn't live on earth, He supposedly lives inside the soul or spirit or ka or whatever one wants to call the part of them that will live outside the human body after the body dies. That is God's focus. The Bible is a guide to how to be more God-like, or Christ-like while we are here, in preparation for our eternity. It is a rule-book of sorts that serves as a goal to strive for, all the while knowing that it is impossible to reach those because of human limitations such as government, environment, human thought and social conditioning. The goal is unattainable in our current form - but by following the 'rules' as best we can, we may hope to reach that goal in the next life.

Maybe. Maybe not. Let's look at a couple of parts of the Bible:

 

Deuteronomy

13:6 Suppose your own full brother, your son, your daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend should seduce you secretly and encourage you to go and serve other gods that neither you nor your ancestors have previously known, 13:7 the gods of the surrounding people (whether near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other).

13:8 You must not give in to him or even listen to him; do not feel sympathy for him or spare him or cover up for him.

13:9 Instead, you must kill him without fail! Your own hand must be the first to strike him, and then the hands of the whole community.

13:10 You must stone him to death because he tried to entice you away from the Lord your God, who delivered you from the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.

13:11 Thus all Israel will hear and be afraid; no longer will they continue to do evil like this among you.

What are we to make of this, in light of your above opinion? God is either taking a direct interest in human societies (he wants believers to kill non-believers), it leaves no room for tolerance of the gods and beliefs of others.

 

That is not the fault of religion, but of those imperfect beings who make human judgements based on the world they live in and their interpretaion of the Bible. Yes, there are many who use the beliefs of others to twist and attempt to control - some because they honestly believe it to be the right thing to do, and others for more selfish reasons. But it is the individual or the group that is doing it and using religion as a tool, and doing a poor job of it.

 

What other judgments can we make, other than human? Knowing that we would misinterpret things in this way, why inspire men to write such things? It doesn't say "you might consider killing him" or "don't kill him, give him food and take him to the edge of town" it says, "you MUST kill him WITHOUT FAIL".

 

Let's assume for a moment that the above passage I quoted wasn't inspired by god at all. It is just the rantings of an intolerant primitive. Wouldn't the above be an excellent example of religion being misused? Further, if the Bible is merely a guidebook on how to achieve Heaven and become closer to god, how can killing someone else for thinking differently accomplish this?

 

Now, let's consider if it is true that the Bible is divinely inspired. If that is so, god felt strongly enough about people who have different notions regarding his nature that he picked someone and had him write the above. If this idea isn't the one he truly inspired, why didn't he correct it before publication? Why hasn't there been any revision? There is not one place in the New Testament where anyone--let alone Jesus--says, "by the way, that passage in Deuteronomy was mis-inspired, so don't go around killing unbelievers. There are many ways to commune with me." He says, "There is no way to Heaven but through me." Also, it has been said that Jesus came and made all the things in Deuteronomy and Leviticus irrelevant. Is that so?

 

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.

5:19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Doesn't seem like it. Even if Jesus did come back to correct the laws given previously, the Ten Commandments are very specific about who to worship and how, and even today they are accepted. Let's look at those:

 

I am sorry for the length, but I find this passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia interesting:

 

"The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: "I am the Lord, thy God. . ." The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).

• Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of "graven things" is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).
  
• Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated.
  
• And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third).
  
• Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).

The precepts which follow are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.

• His life is the object of the Fifth;
  
• the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;
  
• his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;
  
• his good name, of the Eighth;
  
• And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;
  
• and in his property rights by the Tenth.

This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men's souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation."(bold added by me).

 

What does that say about interpretations of this book as just another guidebook, and all paths lead to him? The first commandment could not be more specific. To say that there are other paths is to suggest that either god was kidding when he wrote that (which he did, on stone tablets. The Ten Commandments are not inspired), or that since tolerance feels better and makes more sense we can dispense with it and god doesn't care. Or, does The Supreme Law-Giver make mistakes?

 

I don't agree. I can't speak for God, and I know of no human that really can, but infinite power does not equate to total power or control. Healing one and not another may be part of a plan that we, as mere humans, cannot comprehend or begin to explain.

 

If we cannot comprehend or explain god's plan or will, couldn't it be that he is evil and we just don't know it? We have no way of knowing one way or the other. I suppose that is why he decided to inspire books then, right?

 

Perhaps it is part of that battle that rages on between God & Satan. Perhaps the young who die are being spared a life of torment or simply because God takes them when He deems it is their time. Perhaps their suffering is a sacrifice that we are forced to accept - God is not a comfy grandpa that will never let us feel pain. He supposedly sacrificed His only Son in a horrible way, why would we expect Him to treat the rest of us any different? Mankind tends to 'rate' the powers or blessings that are bestowed on individuals in a way that God probably never would. It is not up to us to say who should live or die or the manner of our deaths. I don't know God's rating system, or even if He has one, for this world.

 

He spells it out in his book, if you the Bible to be that. He spells it out in the Koran, and the Vedas, too, so pick one and go with it. That seems to be what everyone else is doing.

 

I don't know the mind of God, but I think that prayer for material things is a Human creation, not a Godly one. Prayer for guidance, love, courage, etc. and to accept God and do right by Him - to the best of our abilities is.

 

Perhaps, but wouldn't it have been simple to tell people to pray for those things in the books themselves?

 

I might pray for a job so I could make enough money to keep my house and that prayer might be answered the way I want it. But what is the real answer?

 

In this instance we can go to the book for guidance, right?

 

It could be that the material things I asked for, and received, would help me to handle the stresses of life better and in turn be more open to God's love and acceptance of his care for me. When I found that dog I wrote a letter to that church to tell them - because of something someone else said to me at the time. My husband and I went there (my husband is a Christian - I am not). I went though because hubby wanted to and because the story - even though it came from an agnostic like me - made some other people feel better. As one person said to me "when we see everyday miracles like you finding the dog, it reaffirms our hope that God is with us and will care for us" and I thought that was rather sweet. They saw an "everyday miracle" and someone who was near the end of their hope-rope found some strength because of that story. It didn't matter that I didn't believe - what mattered is they did. That hope may not have lasted, I don't know, but their faith got a boost. Because of a dog. That's what I meant about the dog and the luekemia patient being different. Perhaps that hope from the dog's 'miracle' gave spiritual strength to someone fighting for their human health. Who knows. God chooses his miracles - we don't and we can't even begin to understand His reasoning.

 

Then anything could be a miracle. My girlfriend had a migraine last night, and I miraculously went to the store and got her some medicine, and lo and behold she was cured. From my point of view, it was a regular thing, but to her how miraculous! She had a need, and god filled it, through me. Someone with a great deal of faith just might see it that way.

 

But mention that a couple of weeks ago a pregnant woman was shot and killed--along with her unborn son--in a drive-by and "well, we can't know the mind of god" or somesuch (I am not making that up, it happened two blocks from my house at a grocery store).

 

It is precisely our human understanding that leads one to consider finding a dog to be a miracle and affirm that god is good, is it not? yet, when something so incredibly tragic happens and we ask god could allow something like that to happen, either we cannot understand god's plan, or it was the act of humans that god had nothing to do with, or whatever.

 

I cannot see the benefit or morality is a system that would suggest that god would save a dog to bolster one person's faith, yet allow an innocent pregnant woman shopping for groceries for her family to be killed to challenge the faith of others.

 

Why inject god at all, though? Could it be that you are a very nice person, and because you care so much about the suffering of others--even those outside your own species--that you did what made you feel better and nothing more, and a dog benefited? Could we not say that the gang member who pulled the trigger is a thoughtless, immoral idiot and deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law? Why must there be some underlying meaning to any of it?

 

Because the world we live in is different. We can study history, but unless we lived in that society - brought up the way they were brought up - we can never fully understand. Young people today can't imagine what a shameful scandal it was in the 1950s and before, for people to openly have sex with multiple partners. Society sees it differently now and its accepted. Societies change the interpretations of the Bible to fit their own growth and desires, even though the words have not changed. As human's we are doing the best we can with it - and that includes zealots and extremists.

 

Which is why I wonder why we consider it at all. Why frame all of our actions based on the writings of people who lived so long ago, with such a different idea of what the world is like?

 

I don't know. That would be knowing the mind of God and humans are not capable of that. I could say that I know what it feels like to be black and discriminated against, and I could cite examples where I was discriminated against in the same way as a black person, but ask a black person and they are going to say that I don't really 'get it' because I don't share the same racial and cultural history that is part of that person's whole makeup. There is no way to explain it - it is something that simply 'is'. Common experiences, shared environment, same lifestyle - I still wouldn't be able to totally understand the 'black experience'. I know that suicide is illegal (man's laws) but one who wants to is not prohibited because of other's religious beliefs - if someone wants to commit suicide they will, or they won't because of their own beliefs (religious or not).

 

If someone wants to do anything nobody can stop them, save locking them up.

 

Still - it is rebirth.

 

But wouldn't I want to improve, not regress? butif I accept those premises and follow those teachings, I am moving away from Jesus, and then I could end up in Hell? How to know which is right? I must use my human understanding. Is that not so?

 

Yes. That is the human part.

 

See the error of his ways perhaps. Removing demons into an animal that can be removed from the area - removing hatred from the heart, sin from the mind perhaps. The focus of the mind has been documented in some areas - but that too is open to interpretation and a faith of the humann potential. Just because it is not prooved yet does not mean it never will be.

 

Perhaps. ESP could well exist, but since every person so far who has claimed to possess the ability has been shown to be an utter fraud, we can provisionally deny that ESP exists. We are always open to new evidence, but in light of there never being any, we can safely assume that anyone else making that claim is misguided at best or lying at worst. The same could be said for assertions about god.

 

Yes, and there are millions who would agree or would agree with part and disagree with part. Those who claim to 'heal' are human, not God, and practice this for their own reasons. They are not (or should not be) worshipped. Those who believe in them do so because it is their choice.

 

Caveat emptor, really. We have laws that protect people from others who would defraud them, don't we? If I make a specific claim about a product that leads people to chose it, and I am lying, that is a felony. Why is it different with regards to faith? Nobody is forced to go to Benny Hinn Crusades, are they? So don't they deserve what they get? Of course not. At some point we should step in and protect people for their own good, shouldn't we?

 

Perhaps the faith that one has heals them in spite of 'faith healers' not because of them. Perhaps it is the power of their own mind, that is so strong they cannot accept it as part of themselves. No one knows either way.

 

Faith is harmless - human stupidity is not.

 

But nobody has been healed through faith. I didn't come up with this, but I think it is a good point. Why doesn't god heal amputees? Salamanders regrow limbs easily, so it shouldn't be that hard for god to do it on a human, should it? Yet nobody would suggest that a human would regrow a limb, regardless of the amount of faith involved. Why not? The "god doesn't bend the laws of physics" argument doesn't work, as salamanders are regrowing limbs with no help from god at all, so it is physically possible. Are salamanders more special in god's eyes than we are?

 

If a man's heart is ripped from his chest, no amount of faith would heal him. Everyone knows this, even believers. How come? If you believe in faith healing, shouldn't that be included also?

 

Yes. Human claims based on their own (real or imagined or misguided) beliefs. It doesn't mean we have to follow them.

 

Sadly, in a democratic society that is precisely what we must do. It is illegal to experiment on stem cells in South Dakota. It's a felony.

 

No, not angry. You made clear arguments for your POV and I respect that. On some points I don't agree, but that is not saying "I'm right and you are wrong" or that "you are right and I am wrong" I'm open to different ideas and opinions and feel that there is room for all - including disagreeing on points and interpretations.

 

I appreciate your thoughtful posts, and I am really glad you saved that dog!

[Moai]

Agreed. But it also doesn't follow that all of them are entirely incorrect.

 

How are we to determine what is correct and what isn't?

 

Right. This is a difference between Christians and Jews. Religions disagree, therefore they're all wrong is not logical.

No, the point is that they disagree so they cannot be all right. Believers use the same reasoning that I do to determine which is wrong and which is right. They just stop applying it when it comes to their own.

 

Clearly. The Bible is only useful to you as a tool for argument. There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who are on the same page.

Yep.

 

Nonsense. Science disproves things all the time.

That is totally different than proving a negative. You say I have not proven that god doesn't exist. That would be proving a negative. Since you have not, and cannot prove that god exists, your assertion that there is a god is disproved. not the same thing. Look it up.

 

Pasteur designed an experiment which disproved abiogenesis.

Pasteur did not disprove abiogenesis. He performed an experiment that showed the popularly held belief that maggots come from rotten meat. he showed that, in point of fact, the meat itself did not give rise to maggots.

 

Here is an excellent link on the subject:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

 

Look here for an article on continuing experiments regarding agiogenesis: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315161035.htm

 

While still in its infancy, the study of abiogenesis and self-replicating RNA have profound implications regarding our understanding of how life arose.

 

First of all, your "specific, testable claims about God" are drawn from a literalist, non-academic approach to Biblical scholarship. I realize that many people also approach the Bible the exact same way, but your analysis only applies to them, and says nothing of the practice of prayer as a whole.

Which I freely admit. I am not aware of any other kind of prayer, or any idea of what that prayer is for. I have asked you repeatedly to explain it and you are reluctant to do so.

 

How about a definition? Could we agree that this is what prayer is?

 

Prayer is attempted communication with supernatural beings (SBs) or metaphysical energies.

 

Or how about this:

 

Main Entry: prayer

Pronunciation: 'prer

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French priere, praiere, preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex

1 a (1) : an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a prayer for the success of the voyage> (2) : a set order of words used in praying b : an earnest request or wish

2 : the act or practice of praying to God or a god <kneeling in prayer>

3 : a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers -- often used in plural

4 : something prayed for

5 : a slight chance <haven't got a prayer>

 

Notice that the first (and therefore most popular usage) is the one that I use. The others would be fine with me as well. Does one of these definitions conform to your idea of prayer?

 

Second of all, testing specific claims of some religious people and finding them false does not disprove God. For example, to use evolutionary theory as an example, Lamarck put forth the idea of use-and-disuse and the inheritance of acquired traits. He was wrong about use/disuse, he was right about the inheritance of acquired traits. Following your line of thought, however, evolution (and heritable variation) is false simply because Lamarck got use/disuse wrong.

Not so. Lamarck was wrong, but his ideas and hypotheses led to our understanding of evolution as it is today. Through critical examination of his ideas, Darwin came up with Origin of Species. When examining his work, others could see there was something going on, studied further, and here we are.

 

In order to study god in the first place we must assume he exists, as there is no evidence for one. So, when I read the assertions of a believer, I must say "Ok, I will assume for the moment that your god exists. What proof do you have that yours is the correct one?" And they don't have any, so now I am back to the starting point, that is, does god exist at all. So far, none of the ideas about god can be shown to exist. So why bother?

 

This would all be well and good if it were just academic, but people make specific choices about morality and ethics based on these unprovable assumptions.

 

I can conclude that the existence of God is not a testable hypothesis.

I disagree. The idea of any super-being is certainly testable.

 

Epicurus put it succinctly ages ago (almost 300 years before Christ, by the way):

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

I would say that god is an unnecessary hypothesis.

 

Because your thread is not merely about Biblical literalists getting it wrong, or you would have gotten a simple "I agree" from me, if anything at all.

You are correct, it is about prayer in general. However, you have not provided the alternate view that demonstrates my conclusion that prayer is meaningless to be invalid. You just came storming in, declared I was using strawman tactics, and that's it.

 

You could easily have started with, "My understanding of prayer is "x" and I don't think you considered that" and we're off and running, but you did not. Why is that? You have said repeatedly that you don't care, that you don't have time, that I don't care (which is obviously not the case) and on and on.

 

If you don't care in the first place why did you bother with your first post at all? You could've just concluded that I am an idiot (which you are free to do at any point, true or not) and gone on with the things that you do care about. But at some point it was important enough to you to throw baseless accusations at me, tell the world that you can read Hebrew and Greek, and that interpretations of the Bible that are different from yours laughable, ridiculous and absurd. Does that about size it up?

 

You say that prayer is pointless but the evidence (prayer does not move mountains) does not adequately support that assertion. That's why I'm posting.

I cannot see the benefit of prayer anywhere in the natural world. to say that it makes the person praying feel better is one thing, and that may be so, but what does that mean? It makes some people happy to believe that runes predict the future, or that Atlantis existed. Does that make those claims valid in that case?

 

The fact that fundamentalist Christians vote in large numbers scares me too. It's not relevant to your claims about prayer though. You have endeavored to prove that prayer is pointless and that God doesn't exist, and you have done neither.

It is clear that you will never get the basics of reasoning. I will try one more time. I cannot prove that god doesn't exist. You cannot prove a negative. The onus is on the person making the assertion. If you assert god exists, have nothing to back your assertion up, then we can conclude that you are wrong and god doesn't exist.

 

So far you have said that you are convinced you have talked to god. What convinced you? If it convinced you, don't you think that it would convince anyone?

 

I think that I have shown prayer to be pointless, insofar as it affecting anything in reality is concerned. As I sad, if it makes someone feel better, great, but that doesn't mean that prayer is doing anything. To put it another way, it makes me feel good to believe that there is an oil well in my backyard. I lie awake and imagine all the ways I am going to spend my limitless resources. It gives me peace, and joy. It even makes me feel like being nicer to people, I am so happy about my oil well.

 

Does it follow that there really is an oil well? Does it follow that only through imagining oil wells in one's backyard can we truly be happy?

 

And how about this: The city needs to expand its road network. It has been determined that the best place to put the road is through my backyard, RIGHT OVER MY OIL WELL! I, of course, tell the city in no uncertain terms that they cannot pave over my oil well. They send out geologists who examine my backyard and take core samples, and they tell me that there is no oil well. I know, KNOW there is an oil well, and reject their findings.

 

Now, because paving my backyard will benefit all the people in the area, my needs are seen as secondary, and I am displaced and they start paving my backyard. Alas! My oil well! My path to a life of luxury and pleasure! The answer to all my financial problems! I decide that it is unfair and wrong of those horrible, non-oil well believing city planners to ignore the truth of my oil well, so at night I sabotage the construction. I do this often enough that the city has to hire security to protect the work they have done, increasing the overall cost of the project. It is getting harder and harder for me to protect my oil well from this onslaught of unbelievers. This is costing the taxpayer needlessly, let alone having them suffer in traffic, waiting for the projects completion. At one point, an ambulance carrying a sick child to the hospital has to take the long way around (the project would have been finished without my intervention) and the child dies. Too bad! It is my oil well and that is more important than anything!

 

Meanwhile, I have been telling other people about my oil well, and that they can share in its bounty if they help me stop the project. They heartily agree. I begin to amass a large number of followers who dream of sharing in the rewards of my oil well.

 

Finally, I am so frustrated with the project and my lack of success in stopping it, I decide to take care of it all in one fell swoop. My group and I have the resources to destroy utterly the road over my oil well, and do so. And, to make sure that the authorities know we are not to be trifled with, we blow it up when their are men working, so as to cause maximum damage and to show that it is folly to deny my oil well and pave over it! Praise be to the wonderful oil well!

 

I don't have any interest in engaging in a theological discussion with you, just like I wouldn't talk to an Amish guy about auto repair.

And again with the insults. Are you saying that because I don't believe in god I can't talk about it?

 

My point isn't that your scriptural interpretation is wrong. My point is that it's not good evidence. The fact that Biblical literalists are misguided does not make all believers misguided.

True. It is the fact that all believers have the same amount of evidence--none--that makes them misguided.

 

No one is forcing you to respond to what I am saying.

True. Nor are they you. I am not the one who said he didn't care, or that I didn't have time for it. You said that. In point of fact, you are having a theological discussion with me, you are just reluctant to post your point of view.

 

On another site (an atheist forum), a fellow member asked a question regarding theology. As no believers stepped forward, I did and argued with him. We had a nice discussion, and believer's PM'd me, some asking if I was a believer (they checked other threads I posted to and couldn't tell what I actually thought), while others praised me for explaining their point of view so eloquently and thoughtfully. They told me that I was truly a blessing for the Lord. Obviously I understand theology well enough to represent a certain segment of believers, even though I don't share their belief.

 

You made specific claims about prayer and God's existence. Your point was not that fundamentalists are wrong, your point was that all believers are wrong. All I'm maintaining is that debunking fundamentalism (fish in a barrel) does not adequately support your broad claims about all believers. It just doesn't.

I only started with Fundamentalists to begin with. I would be happy to discuss the issues with moderate faith, but you and i both know that once I post what they believe and then analyze it, you will accuse me of strawman tactics, yet again. Hence me asking you what you believe. Then I can discuss your beliefs directly, instead of guessing and hoping to hit the mark.

 

Sure I do. I believe in God. I have no doubt that he exists.

Why?

 

No true Scotsman likes Cheerios!

I was not using the No True Scotsman fallacy. I was not suggesting that you are not a true believer, I am suggesting that your faith doesn't run as deep as theirs.

 

I am a Raider fan (their ruination is proof there is no god), but i own none of their gear. No jersey, no hat, no pennant on my wall, no sticker on my car. When they lose, it doesn't bum me out. It's just a game, after all.

 

Then there are the guys who have the huge stickers on their back window, they have a chair, a jersey, pennants, tapes of previous games, autographs, and they dress up in outlandish costumes for games. When the Raiders lose, they are devastated. Can it not be said that I do not know what it is like to really love the Raiders?

 

Totally different from this:

 

A: No Raider fan would go to a Chiefs vs. Broncos game.

 

B: I am a Raider fan, and I went to a Chiefs vs. Broncos game.

 

C: Well, no TRUE Raider fan would go to a Chiefs vs. Raiders game.

 

For all your accusations of my lack of scholarship you make simple errors regarding fallacious reasoning.

 

Doubting something and being able to disprove something are not equivalent.

True. But believing in something on thin evidence--or none--is not logical or rational.

 

Again, you take an overly simplistic view of history and pretend that all people of faith who ever acted did so only because of the Bible. Then you claim this as evidence that God doesn't exist. Then you have the audacity to criticize other people's logic.

Nope. People of faith have done horrible things independent of the Bible. They have also done so, in large numbers, because of the Bible. This shows that the Bible is not a very good moral guide, and it shows that belief in god is not the guarantor of moral behavior it is touted to be.

 

It shows that religion is dangerous. Since religion is based on the idea that god exists--and that has not been determined--we can say that religion is based on erroneous assumptions. And, since these assumptions lead to a great deal of human suffering, we can conclude that religion is not "good." At the very least, it is value neutral, but since the positive effects of religion are negligible when compared to the horrors it has caused, it can be said it is a fine instrument for evil.

 

There is no evidence that god does not exist. There is also no evidence that he does. So why postulate one? There could be an invisible pink unicorn guiding everything. Prove there isn't.

 

Then, we can read the Bible to determine if the being described therein exists. We examine the claims made in the book. All of the Bible could be true but for one instance and that brings the entire Bible into question. Is that not so? There are many instances in the Bible that are demonstrably false. Can we not conclude that the being described within therefore does not exist?

 

To get around this, you claim that I don't know how to read, that only by reading in the original language can it be truly understood, and on and on and on. Each is an ad hoc explanation on your part.

 

How do you even know that god is male, for example. And why would a being there is only one of require gender?

 

I don't have a problem with this, except that it's a backpedal.

 

You did not create a thread about Biblical literalists being misguided, even if that is what it has become.

No, I think all believers are misguided. I think that you are misguided. I cannot demonstrate that to be so because you are so secretive about your belief system, but that is the case. I am just trying to get on with things, and pst your incessant arguments by declaration.

 

What? John was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. All of the evangelists were Jews.

Are you sure John was a Jew? You know so much about the Bible and the history of it all, and you don't know that there is dispute over this?

 

From page 51 A History of Christianity by Owen Chadwick

 

"Was the author of John the Apostle John that knew Jesus or a later convert? Secular scholars claim convert, while religious scholars claim he knew Jesus in the flesh based more on faith then anything else. Both have their bias and political agendas. (I certainly do as well.) The New American Bible describes the Gospel of John as "highly literary and symbolic" and "does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories" as the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John is full of "signs" and cryptic babble.

 

Here's an analysis you might enjoy, since it contains numerous references to the original Greek: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/CBA_Seminar/townsend.htm

 

Interesting you are certain and think that the case is closed while others who understand at least as well as you (and research and teach in the field) still feel the need to discuss such things.

 

Beyond that, given your extensive knowledge of doctrine, Biblical history, and having the ability to discern the truth given that you are a believer, you do know that the Gospel of John was used to rationalize 1700 years of repression against the Jews, finally culminating in the Holocaust, don't you? You are aware that not one Roman Catholic SS man who participated in the Holocaust was excommunicated, right?

 

Here is a cool book about it:

 

The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism David I Kertzer

 

A short review: "The Vatican's 1998 report "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah" purportedly exonerated the Church of complicity in the Holocaust. In The Popes Against the Jews, David I. Kertzer argues that the report is "not the product of a Church that wants to confront its history." Kertzer's book refutes the Church's thesis that the Holocaust grew out of "an anti-Judaism that was essentially more sociological and political than religious." In fact, Kertzer asserts, those dimensions of European anti-Semitism developed "in no small part due to the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church itself." The racial laws of fascist Italy and the Nuremberg Laws of 1930s Germany, for example, were directly modeled on the Church's own rules governing treatment of Jews: until the collapse of the Papal States in the late 19th century, Jews living in these territories were forced to wear yellow badges and live in ghettos. Kertzer's arguments make for compelling reading because they're presented in story form, based on the actions of the popes themselves. Access to long-sealed Church archives allowed Kertzer to reconstruct some of the most shocking, secret conversations that occurred in the Vatican in the decades leading up to World War II."

 

It seems that I am not the only one "over-simplifying" or ignoring the socio-economic reasons for things, huh?

 

Many Christians believe in free will. Almost everyone knows that God didn't have veto power, editing rights, or any sort of quality control over the Bible. Inspiration and dictation are not the same thing.

Huh? So god could inspire a man to write something but that's it? Then all of Shakespeare is inspired, right? And so is all of Steven King and John Grisham. They feel the need to write, and where does that impulse arise?

 

And, if god tells me that I should write about people taking off their coats and I interpret that to mean I should write, "God told me to skin you alive" that isn't god's fault? If god isn't exerting quality control over his books (something done by every human editor on Earth) then what good are the books about him?

 

Finding flaws in the Bible is not the same as finding flaws in believing in God. The Bible is not an encyclopedia of evidence for God, and treating it as such is a misdirection. The Bible is a tool for people who already believe in God, and like the study of anything, you get what you put into it.

How can that be? How can someone determine that Jesus is the son of God without reading the book first?

[Diamonds&Rust]

Since you have not, and cannot prove that god exists, your assertion that there is a god is disproved.

For me, God is not an "assertion" or point of argument. God's existence is not a testable hypothesis, which is quite different than it failing the test.

 

I know God exists for the same reason that I know love exists, my own experiences. I can't prove it. I don't need to. It doesn't bother me that you're not a believer.

 

Pasteur did not disprove abiogenesis. He performed an experiment that showed the popularly held belief that maggots come from rotten meat. he showed that, in point of fact, the meat itself did not give rise to maggots.

Semantics. He proved a negative: Spontaneous generation does not exist.

 

The idea of any super-being is certainly testable.

I disagree.

 

I cannot see the benefit of prayer anywhere in the natural world.

This is not the same as "prayer has no benefit."

 

So far you have said that you are convinced you have talked to god. What convinced you?

God convinced me, when we spoke. I can still deduce logically that God does not exist, but my experience conflicts with that, and I trust it.

If it convinced you, don't you think that it would convince anyone?

Spirituality is motivated by faith, not reason.

 

Are you saying that because I don't believe in god I can't talk about it?

No, you're welcome to talk about it. Just like the Amish guy is welcome to talk about automobiles.

 

I was not suggesting that you are not a true believer, I am suggesting that your faith doesn't run as deep as theirs.

Using different words does not change the fallacy.

 

 

I am a Raider fan

Heh. This might be the only thing we'll ever agree on, I'm considering ending my participation in this thread. Go Raiders.

 

But believing in something on thin evidence--or none--is not logical or rational.

This is not the same as being wrong or incorrect.

 

How do you even know that god is male, for example.

God is not human.

[bluetuesday]

we live in a universe loaded with plausable deniability, for very good reason. there is no undeniable evidence for god. if there were, people who wanted to experience being atheists wouldn't be able to. that's not the way god works at all. god will never negate people's free will NOT to believe in god, if that's the experience they want.

 

that's not to say god has bailed on the universe and left us all without evidence. it certainly exists on an individual basis. i have experienced the transcendental reality of god and know god exists. other people have similar stories of experience of god at a level they can understand. those experiences vary, but then no two people would describe the beauty of a rainbow in exactly the same way either.

 

if a person sincerely seeks answers about god with an open mind, they will find them. if they don't want to find them, or refuse to open their mind to anything beyond what they currently think they know, they'll probably fill up their time starting lots more threads like this, proving nothing, teaching nothing and learning nothing.

 

on topic, answered prayer is not something god does for some people and not others, as if he was an old man handing out candyfloss to children who asked the nicest.

 

you want your prayers answered, start LISTENING to god. start taking responsibility for your life and stop blaming other people for what happens to you. there is no such thing as god's punishment. there is only reaping what you sow. a lot of people live ungodly, selfish lives and then wonder why god doesn't save them when the waters rise. you sow wonder and the love of god, you reap a miracle that will move mountains. you sow selfishness and ungodly behaviour, you reap katrina. welcome to the scientific law of cause and effect.

[primed7]

Maoi,

 

I honestly think you should get to know God more before you accuse Him of all the things you have so far. I find it irritating when people just assume things about God just because they heard someone say something.

 

If you knew Him and you still said all these things, fine. Just don't judge based on popular things you've heard.

 

So there is my challenge, I dare you to get to know Him. Either by just reading the Bible (yes the flawed book as you call it) because you don't know Him at all and it's such a shame.

 

PS: I'm not replying to anymore questions about this and that. Just get to know Him, maybe then you can boast of how awful He is from your own relationship with Him.

 

Good luck

[disgracian]

So there is my challenge, I dare you to get to know Him. Either by just reading the Bible ... because you don't know Him at all and it's such a shame.

Either by reading the Bible or...?

 

You trailed off before you got around to presenting any alternatives, for which there are many.

 

Cheers,

D.

[InsanityImpaired]

I honestly think you should get to know God more before you accuse Him of all the things you have so far. I find it irritating when people just assume things about God just because they heard someone say something.

And why should God be the peaceloving force, some individual believers hold him for? Many believers apparently don't have a problem with preaching hatred - apparently inspired by God as well. The defence you pose is just no defence at all.

 

So what is the true God? If the human mind cannot fathom God, it would show some hefty bias to say the peaceloving / hatred promoting God is the true God. Those who see God in a more or less diametrically opposed way can often just as easily point to the Bible to backup their point of view.

 

The part in bold applies to many if not most believers as well, even when judging fellow believers.

 

So there is my challenge, I dare you to get to know Him. Either by just reading the Bible (yes the flawed book as you call it) because you don't know Him at all and it's such a shame.

Moai does not seem to have a problem to find many dubious statements of accounts and the loving nature of God in the Bible. The Bible which is the word of God after all.

 

What I do know is that research seems to suggest that people with a positive expectancies have higher chances to survive complicated and risky surgery. And I do see the potential for prayer to alter these expectancies (positively and negatively), but that does not constitute a proof for God.