Answered Prayer

[quankanne]

An invisible mother who never answers you, and doesn't do anything one way or the other. For me, it's mostly in knowing that I am loved no matter how boneheaded I get *smile* ... there doesn't always need to be an answer or an action when I petition God, just the assurance that He is there is enough of an answer, it's in knowing that I"m not alone, expected to figure things out by myself, but rather am part of a mystical relationship with Him, and more directly, with other believers. And that there is a never deviating standard that I can count on. Sounds crazy, but it works for me, and that's what is important in my particular case.

 

I am not making that up, and I am not making up the fact that millions of people believe this. Most believers do to some extent. And while you see it as faith in the human heart or whatever, the vast majority of believer's don't.

 

oh, I know that there are charlatans who prey on the weak, and should be smote for their behavior. However, it still boils down to the issue of free will and those people's decision to "give" out of faith. Until they understand that they're being fleeced, and with bad intention, the point is moot ... I cannot force my belief on them or make them share my views simply because it's their decision to make, not mine, no matter how frustrating it is to see them taken advantage of. You cannot help someone who isn't ready to be helped.

 

I would also add that if your stance is the correct one, why didn't the Bible make tat more clear? How is that a book inspired by God doesn't have a clear definition about how to pray, what to pray for, and how prayer works? Every believer thinks that it does, yet they disagree greatly. How come?

 

Moai, my faith journey may have many similarities to others' but it's uniquely mine, much in the same way that my DNA is uniquely mine or my fingerprints uniquely mine. Therefore, a relationship with God isn't a cookie-cutter thing, because we are all not the same person with the same needs or the same thoughts or dynamics. To say there should only be one interpretation, only one way to pray is to deny that individual's nature and specific needs, much in the way a a general education curriculum can never satisfy the needs of the advanced student or the student with learning disabilities. There's a uniqueness that must be addressed.

 

factor in the faith aspect, in which God appeals to people in different ways and different times for different reasons, and it's hard to just peghole it into one tidy little equation. You have to remember that the faith journey is not linear, but all over the place, so to speak, because it has no right or wrong path, no matter how hard people want to pigeon-hole the experience so that it can make sense.

[Diamonds&Rust]

There still is no evidence for any god anywhere.

 

To me, there is plenty of evidence for God, almost everywhere.

 

You make it seem as if the fact that you don't believe such things that nobody does, or that those who do are so few in number as to be a fringe minority. That is not the case.

 

Not at all. I just don't agree with the well-poisoning--that somehow prayer is useless or harmful simply because a fundamentalist approach to Bible study reveals prayer to be an ineffective way to move mountains.

 

So yes, believing in Zeus WAS a part of Greek religion

 

No, it wasn't, was my point. It wasn't a religion rooted in belief, it was about practice. The stories were not designed as actual accounts of the actions of actual Gods--it was literature, and they knew that.

 

And what makes me sure that it is god-belief that causes homophobia is the rhetoric of these people themselves. It isn't like I am just making it up, or that I want it to be based on the Bible but it isn't.

 

This is not evidence for causation. The question I'm still asking, that you still haven't answered, is what makes you so sure that scripture causes homophobia? Showing people who have used scripture in their rhetoric to justify homophobia is not valid evidence, it could just as easily be a justification for a homophobia that always existed in them.

 

Even non-religious people hate gays, and find all sorts of rhetoric to support their irrational fear of them. The fact that many people use the Bible is evidence of the Bible's effectiveness in serving as propaganda, not as evidence of the Bible as a corrupting force.

 

If I hate dislike fish tacos, and your religion (our religion, even) has a text condemning them, and I start using the text as evidence against why fish tacos are bad, there is no evidence that our religion had anything to do with the formation of my beliefs on fish tacos.

[Moai]

Bzzzzzzzzzp! Wrong.

 

You didn't bother to consider that maybe God has no intention of violating the laws of physics, or that God simply, for whatever reason, doesn't intervene; that doesn't preclude the existence of God.

 

We aren't talking about deism, we are talking mainly about prayer, and what the Bible says about it. You may have a deistic view of god, but that doesn't mean others don't.

 

Not only that, if god doesn't violate the laws of physics (which means no miracles, ever) and chooses not to intervene in human suffering even though he could, he could not be described as benevolent by any stretch of the imagination.

 

There could be many gods, god could be evil--you can make up stories all you want. There would still be the same amount of evidence. All of this could be happening in some alien supercomputer, to paraphrase Sam Harris.

[amerikajin]

We aren't talking about deism, we are talking mainly about prayer, and what the Bible says about it. You may have a deistic view of god, but that doesn't mean others don't.

 

Not only that, if god doesn't violate the laws of physics (which means no miracles, ever) and chooses not to intervene in human suffering even though he could, he could not be described as benevolent by any stretch of the imagination.

 

There could be many gods, god could be evil--you can make up stories all you want. There would still be the same amount of evidence. All of this could be happening in some alien supercomputer, to paraphrase Sam Harris.

 

Got it. Just needed clarification.

[Moai]

To me, there is plenty of evidence for God, almost everywhere.

 

To some finding their car keys is evidence for god. To others, it is the fact that their stove didn't explode.

 

Not at all. I just don't agree with the well-poisoning--that somehow prayer is useless or harmful simply because a fundamentalist approach to Bible study reveals prayer to be an ineffective way to move mountains.

 

Prayer in itself isn't harmful, it is the belief in prayer to be an effective way to move mountains is harmful. Prayer never effects anything, save maybe the believers state of mind. A delusion that makes one feel better is still a delusion.

 

No, it wasn't, was my point. It wasn't a religion rooted in belief, it was about practice. The stories were not designed as actual accounts of the actions of actual Gods--it was literature, and they knew that.

 

Whatever. I find it interesting that they erected so many statues, built so many temples, and had so many festivals in the name of a god they did not see as real or worship, but suit yourself. You still ignore the substance of MY point, which is that nobody would consider me arrogant or mean for declaring any ancient god to be non-existent. It seems it is only arrogant to criticize beliefs like this if that belief still has adherents.

 

This is not evidence for causation. The question I'm still asking, that you still haven't answered, is what makes you so sure that scripture causes homophobia? Showing people who have used scripture in their rhetoric to justify homophobia is not valid evidence, it could just as easily be a justification for a homophobia that always existed in them.

 

Hatred of homosexuals is learned behavior. Why is it every website I have come across that is against gay marriage, for example, is religious in nature? They always cite chapter and verse. Why is it that the main spokespeople for anti-gay legislation are reverends?

 

Certainly there are those who do not consider themselves to be especially religious but hate homosexuals. That doesn't mean they didn't get the idea from religious doctrine, or that they are not influenced by religion.

 

Even non-religious people hate gays, and find all sorts of rhetoric to support their irrational fear of them. The fact that many people use the Bible is evidence of the Bible's effectiveness in serving as propaganda, not as evidence of the Bible as a corrupting force.

 

But it is. It was used to burn people at the stake for about five hundred years, it has been used to promote slavery, it has been used as a guidebook for denying women anesthetic during childbirth.

 

If I hate dislike fish tacos, and your religion (our religion, even) has a text condemning them, and I start using the text as evidence against why fish tacos are bad, there is no evidence that our religion had anything to do with the formation of my beliefs on fish tacos.

 

Maybe, but without the text giving you carte blanche to hate fish tacos, and even giving you advice admonishing you to kill fish taco-eaters, you would probably be tolerant of fish taco-eaters. You would not go out of your way to prevent others from eating fish tacos in the privacy of their own homes, you wouldn't disown your kid because he happened to like fish tacos, you would not preach about how fish tacos are undermining the country, and so forth. Not only that, but many people who don't care about fish tacos one way or the other would join your cause, because they believe god hates fish tacos. And then people go to prison for something as simple a eating fish tacos.

[Moose]

I'm gone for a couple of days, and look at all of these posts~!

To some finding their car keys is evidence for god. To others, it is the fact that their stove didn't explode.

And for those with a few more brain cells....understand that evidence present, past and future does point to God, AND to science, and that BOTH are hand and hand.

Prayer in itself isn't harmful, it is the belief in prayer to be an effective way to move mountains is harmful. Prayer never effects anything, save maybe the believers state of mind. A delusion that makes one feel better is still a delusion.

I read this and thought to myself, "I bet Moai would think this would tick a believer off".

 

Truth of the matter is, my heart goes out to you, simply because you obviously have not had a true experience with God and the power of prayer. It's also obvious to me that you never will. It's also obvious to me that you're not capable of reading the Bible for all it's worth.

 

You aren't taking into account the time periods, the genre, the situations, the locations, and everything else that needs addressed before you spout off inaccuracies.

 

In fact, based on the replies you've posted, and I just spent over an hour reading, you don't even deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.......

[Diamonds&Rust]

We aren't talking about deism, we are talking mainly about prayer, and what the Bible says about it. You may have a deistic view of god, but that doesn't mean others don't.

So, basically, you're taking the most ridiculous (in terms of scholarship) approach to Bible study, and then using it to show that their conclusions are ridiculous. Why bother?

 

Fundamentalists lack reason. This is not news, nor is it an effective indictment against prayer or God.

 

I find it interesting that they erected so many statues, built so many temples, and had so many festivals in the name of a god they did not see as real or worship, but suit yourself.

I didn't say they didn't worship them, I said that the religion wasn't rooted in belief. Maybe if you spent as long as I did reading that crap in an academic setting, you wouldn't find it as interesting.

 

You still ignore the substance of MY point, which is that nobody would consider me arrogant or mean for declaring any ancient god to be non-existent. It seems it is only arrogant to criticize beliefs like this if that belief still has adherents.

I think anyone who is calling you arrogant is saying it because of the way you're saying what you're saying, not specifically because of the content.

 

Hatred of homosexuals is learned behavior.

Everything is learned behavior. You still tout yourself as someone who needs evidence to accept any claim, and you still lack evidence for the claim that religious rhetoric causes homophobia. All your attempts could just as easily be evidence for homophobia causing religious rhetoric, as I suspect.

 

Certainly there are those who do not consider themselves to be especially religious but hate homosexuals. That doesn't mean they didn't get the idea from religious doctrine, or that they are not influenced by religion.

Nor does it mean that they did, or that they are.

 

The logical standards you apply to believers don't seem to apply to you, and that's unfortunate.

[quankanne]

Prayer in itself isn't harmful, it is the belief in prayer to be an effective way to move mountains is harmful.

 

prayer is often based in faith, or can be considered an act of faith, even when it seems like that wellspring of faith is running low. However, it's still allows one to grab on to that hope that change will come about, in whatever form. And often, that change – that movement of mountains, if you will – is a psychological one, not necessarily physical.

 

 

re: arrogance. You say that you are being labled as arrogant for pointing fingers at the wrongness of a spiritual faith, but I honestly think it's because of the truly ironic manner in which you go about presenting your case. People are labeled as narrow-minded because they base their beliefs in a spiritual faith, and you feel that it gives them license to do all kinds of bad things. Maybe so, maybe not. However, it's kind of funny to see you argue for the other team (so to speak) with same kind of religious zeal when trying to make your point. That's where the arrogance lays, not because you hold an opposing belief.

 

maybe it's time to just shake hands and call it a moot point, because you're not going to win over any converts – nor I – in this battle of words and ideas. People are going to respond to that inner call, period.

[Moai]

I'm gone for a couple of days, and look at all of these posts~!And for those with a few more brain cells....understand that evidence present, past and future does point to God, AND to science, and that BOTH are hand and hand.I read this and thought to myself, "I bet Moai would think this would tick a believer off".

 

I never write anything to "tick people off."

 

And insults aside, what you claim to understand is not true. There is no evidence WHATSOEVER for an omnibenevolent, omniscient super-being. Zero. I am not just asserting this and hoping it to be so, men since about 450 BCE have been looking, and have yet to turn any up. The fact that you (and millions of others) seem eager to accept things without sufficident evidence does not mean that what you consider evidence is, in fact, evidence for your belief.

 

Consider: The vast majority of people on this planet do not think that Jesus was the Son Of God. Yet these other people are just as devout as you, and have just as much evidence. They see the operations of Allah, for example, all around them. If it is so obvious that the god in whom you believe is everywhere, why are there so many different ways to worship him? And why do people kill each other for doing it wrong?

 

Science in no way points to god. The reverse, in fact. We know more every day, and as gather more information god gets smaller and smaller. People with religious faith make very specific assertions (based on insufficient evidence) about the nature of reality, and they are demonstrably wrong. Just a cursory glance at the evidence shows this to be the case.

 

I have read you say before that science will never provide all the answers. That is probably true. But notice that science does not suggest answers without evidence. You claim to know the origin of the Universe, what you purpose is for being here, and what happens after you die--things no human being can possibly know. And you claim to know these things on no evidence whatsoever. You believe it, therefore it is so.

 

Truth of the matter is, my heart goes out to you, simply because you obviously have not had a true experience with God and the power of prayer. It's also obvious to me that you never will. It's also obvious to me that you're not capable of reading the Bible for all it's worth.

First, as I have posted many times, I have had a "born-again" experience. I once thought that god was obvious. Then I began to read, and I began to examine my beliefs critically. And I realized that I was wrong.

 

And who can say who is capable of reading the Bible "for all its worth"? From previous posts of yours, I get the impression that you are more of a Biblical literalist than Diamonds&Rust is. Why are you right and he wrong?

 

You aren't taking into account the time periods, the genre, the situations, the locations, and everything else that needs addressed before you spout off inaccuracies.

Show me one time where I quoted the Bible inaccurately. Just one. You may not agree with the interpretation, but there are also millions of BELIEVERS who disagree with yours. Why single me out? If the Bible says all prayers are answered in the affirmative (which it does), I take that as a claim that we can test easily. And it fails. Then, out come the ad hoc explanations....

 

Please explain to me how "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is metaphorical. Please tell me how virtually the entire book of Leviticus is a metaphor. And why god meant what he said then, but not now. If the laws given in Leviticus are no longer applicable, why are they still in the book?

 

I may miss the point of the Bible. Fine. But almost every theologian who ever lived did so as well. Christians used the Bible to burn people at the stake for 500 years, with no qualms at all. How should we deal with heretics? Should we torture them, as St. Augustine suggests, or kill them outright, as Aquinas recommends? Should we purge Jews from our midst, as Luther suggests? Why is it that these men, who helped shaped the beliefs that you hold so dear could be so far wrong?

 

The simple fact that you can suggest that the Bible is not straightforward should make you consider whether or not it is divinely inspired.

 

Lastly, do you realize that everything in the Bible could have been written by anyone living at that time? There is not one groundbreaking insight to be found within its pages. Just think about if god had decided to share some math with us. We would still be marveling at its clarity and sophistication, would we not? Instead, god went into detail about how to treat your slaves, how to sell your daughter into sexual slavery, etc.

 

In fact, based on the replies you've posted, and I just spent over an hour reading, you don't even deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

I guess I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.......

Benefit of the doubt about what? None of what I have posted is correct simply because I wrote it. I am just repeating evidence. That's it.

[Moai]

Prayer in itself isn't harmful, it is the belief in prayer to be an effective way to move mountains is harmful.

 

prayer is often based in faith, or can be considered an act of faith, even when it seems like that wellspring of faith is running low. However, it's still allows one to grab on to that hope that change will come about, in whatever form. And often, that change – that movement of mountains, if you will – is a psychological one, not necessarily physical.

 

The Bible is clear that Matthew is talking about an actual, physical mountain. You can torture the text all you like--people have been doing it for centuries for all sorts of reasons--I disagree.

 

re: arrogance. You say that you are being labled as arrogant for pointing fingers at the wrongness of a spiritual faith, but I honestly think it's because of the truly ironic manner in which you go about presenting your case. People are labeled as narrow-minded because they base their beliefs in a spiritual faith, and you feel that it gives them license to do all kinds of bad things.

 

I never labeled anyone. I labeled very specific beliefs about the world silly (and I am not the first to do so) and gave a few examples of how said beliefs can make otherwise rational people narrow-minded.

 

Maybe so, maybe not. However, it's kind of funny to see you argue for the other team (so to speak) with same kind of religious zeal when trying to make your point. That's where the arrogance lays, not because you hold an opposing belief.

 

It is not some special trait that I possess that leads me to the conclusions I have. It is evidence. And because the irrational faith of others directly affects my life and the lives of others--in many cases tragically so--I am zealous in my position.

 

maybe it's time to just shake hands and call it a moot point, because you're not going to win over any converts – nor I – in this battle of words and ideas. People are going to respond to that inner call, period.

 

Well, I was won over. Others have as well. You might not, but that is beside the point. At some level, do you not enjoy the opportunity to share your faith with others? Doesn't it make you feel good to believe as you do? Are you not thankful for such an opportunity? Here it is. Now, when you post your beliefs I and others will ask you for evidence, or wonder at the contradictions therein.

 

I also think that there will be a winner, and a loser. Christ was either the Son of God or he wasn't. Allah is either the one true god or he is not. If I am wrong, I have a long time in hell to reflect on the error of my ways. The fact that I don't lose any sleep on such a result should tell you what I think of the evidence for your position (thanks to Sam Harris again for that!)

[lonelybird]

No evidence to prove.

 

Believe by faith, not by sight.

 

Or among full of ***** there is a diamond. Someone focus on the diamond, but someone only focus on the *****. This is how I look at the whole situation:o

[Moai]

So, basically, you're taking the most ridiculous (in terms of scholarship) approach to Bible study, and then using it to show that their conclusions are ridiculous. Why bother?

 

Fundamentalists lack reason. This is not news, nor is it an effective indictment against prayer or God.

 

What's with the name calling from you people? Ridiculous? You just called at least 50 million Americans ridiculous. Good for you. Why do Fundamentalists lack reason, per se? Because their faith leads them to conclusions different from yours? After saying that, why do you consider me arrogant for drawing the same conclusion about you?

 

Where you see metaphor, they do not. Perhaps it is they who understand the Bible and not you. Do you have evidence that you are correct and they aren't? Where is it? You have not once posted an alternate view of even the simple passages I quoted. Why not?

 

Was Augustine ridiculous? Aquinas? Luther? Is it ridiculous for cardinals and bishops to get together to discuss whether or not limbo exists? That is happening right now, by the way. Are they just wasting their time? Should I give them your email so they can consult you? Should all of the students at Liberty Baptist College abandon their position on just your say so?

 

I didn't say they didn't worship them, I said that the religion wasn't rooted in belief. Maybe if you spent as long as I did reading that crap in an academic setting, you wouldn't find it as interesting.

 

And for the third time, you ignore the substance of my point.

 

I think anyone who is calling you arrogant is saying it because of the way you're saying what you're saying, not specifically because of the content.

 

And I think that it is about time. I will reiterate: If I used the same tone to criticize astrology, alchemy, or dowsing nobody would say a word about it. But examine someone's widely shared irrational belief and its arrogance. Why should your beliefs be taken seriously, just because you hold them? Because millions of people share the same delusion?

 

Everything is learned behavior. You still tout yourself as someone who needs evidence to accept any claim, and you still lack evidence for the claim that religious rhetoric causes homophobia. All your attempts could just as easily be evidence for homophobia causing religious rhetoric, as I suspect.

 

Then why are those passages in the Bible? Why are they quoted incessantly? There is no doubt that the writers of the Bible hated homosexuals (and lots of other things) but that belief has been handed down since they wrote those words down. And for what?

 

Not long ago, a fellow member (a "ridiculous Fundamentalist) asked be if I was gay. We weren't discussing homosexuality remotely, by the way. As she put it, "it goes together." I hesitated to answer, knowing that it would degenerate into a gay-bashing fest, but I have nothing to hise. When I answered in the negative, she ignored me, ranted on about my "gayness", and finally asked if I worshiped Satan, and implied that there are rules to such things and by the power of Christ I had to tell the truth.

 

Do you really think that she hated homosexuals to a great degree and just uses her religion to justify it? She basically flipped out about it. And that is one example from here, there are many many more. So many, it makes your position untenable. As usual, you have posted no evidence to support your assertion, you just make it and that's it.

 

Why is it that less religious, more rational societies experience little or no anti-homosexual violence? Why are their young homosexuals not killing themselves in record numbers?

 

Nor does it mean that they did, or that they are.

 

The logical standards you apply to believers don't seem to apply to you, and that's unfortunate.

 

Really. How so? You should read "Religion Gone Bad", for example.

 

Point to one fallacy I have used in support of my position. There aren't any. Not only that, I am only taking men at their word. When someone tells me that they hate homosexuals because the Bible says so, I believe them. Why don't you? When a kid throws a grenade onto a schoolbus shouting "God is great!" why am I suddenly missing nebulous subtleties, instead of seeing things as they are? Do you deny that there are passages in the Bible that denounce homosexuals?

 

What logical standard am I missing? In just this example, we disagree. Let's see the evidence for your position. You never post any--in fact, I can only recal one rather lame analogy on your past during this entire exchange. You make assertions, call me names, misrepresent what I have said, but I have not seen one substantive post from you. Why?

 

You have an excellent command of the argument by assertion fallacy, but beyond that I am not seeing anything of real value that you add to this discussion. You have not explained why Fundamentalists are ridiculous, why you think that belief causes rhetoric, or why your interpretation of scripture is any more valid than the 2500 others. You have claimed that my assertions about prayer are unfounded, yet you offer not alternate explanation.

[lonelybird]

Moai

Your fear for believers reach a high degree.........

If you have power, will you kill us all or put us in jail? well, I forgive you already:p

have a good day:bunny:

[Diamonds&Rust]

If it is so obvious that the god in whom you believe is everywhere, why are there so many different ways to worship him?

If pizza really tastes good, as so many people claim, why are there so many different toppings and ways of preparing pizza? I don't understand why multiple interpretations of the same basic idea appeal to many different people. This is beyond me.

Science in no way points to god. The reverse, in fact. We know more every day, and as gather more information god gets smaller and smaller.

If you take religious texts that were written by humans who didn't study science and compare them to scientific findings that prove them wrong, this is not a big deal. All you are capable of doing is ruling out a literalist approach to these texts, which says nothing of the millions of faithful people who don't approach Biblical scholarship in this way, and still find value in religious teachings.

It is not some special trait that I possess that leads me to the conclusions I have. It is evidence.

Simply stating that there is no evidence for God is not evidence against God. We lack scientific evidence for God. For you this may be a problem, but for many it is not. Regardless, it's misleading to act as though you have proven that God does not exist.

At some level, do you not enjoy the opportunity to share your faith with others? Doesn't it make you feel good to believe as you do? Are you not thankful for such an opportunity?

It depends. Spiritual discussions are best held in the spirit of understanding and open-mindedness, not within the framework of a high school debate.

The Bible is clear that Matthew is talking about an actual, physical mountain.

Only if your approach to Biblical scholarship is a literalist one.

Just think about if god had decided to share some math with us. We would still be marveling at its clarity and sophistication, would we not? Instead, god went into detail about how to treat your slaves, how to sell your daughter into sexual slavery, etc.

Except that it's foolish to think God wrote the Bible, whether you're an arugmentative atheist or a devout fundamentalist. It does no good.

 

To even think of using that as a premise for your arguments is absurd.

You just called at least 50 million Americans ridiculous.

The number is probably much larger.

Why do Fundamentalists lack reason, per se? Because their faith leads them to conclusions different from yours?

Confusing cause and effect, I think.

You have not once posted an alternate view of even the simple passages I quoted. Why not?

Because I don't see scripture as a toy. If you'd like to learn how to study sacred texts (and it's the same academic rigor regardless of the text--vedas, quran, etc.) you should take a class. I don't have the time or interest to teach you.

 

It's not that simply that I find your scriptural interpretations laughable, it's that I find them irrelevant.

Is it ridiculous for cardinals and bishops to get together to discuss whether or not limbo exists? That is happening right now, by the way. Are they just wasting their time? Should I give them your email so they can consult you? Should all of the students at Liberty Baptist College abandon their position on just your say so?

Perhaps you'd be a better one to discourage them; I don't care much about how they spend their time.

Why should your beliefs be taken seriously, just because you hold them? Because millions of people share the same delusion?

The millions of people, both the millions who have faith and the millions who don't, aren't really part of my personal beliefs. I'm not looking for approval. I take my beliefs seriously, because I am thoroughly convinced that I have interacted with God.

Then why are those passages in the Bible?

Are you specifically referring to the passage in Leviticus that condemns homosexual acts?

 

It's in the Bible because it was extremely common for people to participate in fertility rituals that involved homosexual acts. This not only causes turmoil at home, but can lead to disease, and most importantly to a priestly caste that has a vested interest in people properly practicing Judaism, it's not good for you to participate in the rituals of a competing religion. This is why it was made ritually unclean, which is sometimes translated as "abomination," but reading Hebrew, I know better.

 

There is no doubt that the writers of the Bible hated homosexuals (and lots of other things) but that belief has been handed down since they wrote those words down.

 

The passage was written before homosexuality as a concept existed, and plenty of Christians don't consider it sinful to be gay, even to act on it. This may be a minority opinion, but even outside the Christian community homosexuals have a tough time gaining acceptance. You still have not proven that religion causes people to hate gays, only shown how many who hate gays use religion to justify it.

 

For example, the Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization who uses religious rhetoric. There is not evidence, however, that religion causes them to be racist. There is only evidence that they use religious rhetoric in their racism. The burden of proof would be on someone making the assertion that religion causes racism in KKK members to actually show evidence of causation.

 

Do you really think that she hated homosexuals to a great degree and just uses her religion to justify it? She basically flipped out about it. And that is one example from here, there are many many more.

Assumption-based analysis of anecdotal evidence is not logically sound. Neither is a vague statement about having more of the same, worthless anecdotal evidence.

 

As usual, you have posted no evidence to support your assertion, you just make it and that's it.

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof.

 

I'm not making a claim about religion causing homophobia; I'm examining yours, and it turns out you don't have sound evidence for it.

[Moose]

I never write anything to "tick people off."

Now that's a bold face lie. Of course you do.... You're whole goal here is to rid our site of believers. Or at least, that is the way you'd prefer it.......take it a higher step, and include ridding the world of us believers. What makes you think you can wrestle against these principalities without tickin' someone off?

 

Don't insult my intellegience like that again. You know that I know better.....you're smarter than that.

And insults aside, Insult? What insult? what you claim to understand is not true. There is no evidence WHATSOEVER for an omnibenevolent, omniscient super-being. Zero. I am not just asserting this and hoping it to be so, men since about 450 BCE have been looking, and have yet to turn any up. The fact that you (and millions of others) seem eager to accept things without sufficident evidence does not mean that what you consider evidence is, in fact, evidence for your belief.

Take a look at this statement for a sec......especially this part: "omnibenevolent, omniscient super-being"......THE only way to convince you, and millions of scientists, or realists, or whatever you want to call yourself is to have been there at the beginning to gather this, "evidence", you seem to be stuck on.

 

SINCE that's impossible, you cannot gather tangible materials to prove otherwise. Unless you were right there witnessing the very Hand of God, you don't have a leg to stand on EITHER.

 

Your arrogance is indeed the fact that you lean on your own understanding, and the words of flawed human beings to be truth.

 

Now I don't know you IRL. However, it's very questionable that you're the smartest person on Earth, and I would be willing to bet, not even the brightest individual on this forum.

 

I will give you this. You have more faith in limited, mere, human understanding than alot of believers do in God.

 

Have you ever had a gut feeling that you were right or wrong in a situation that went against all laws of understanding? If not.....then you're a robot, a troll, or a computer program.......

If it is so obvious that the god in whom you believe is everywhere, why are there so many different ways to worship him? And why do people kill each other for doing it wrong?

That's an easy one. It's because of people just like you....

 

That's right. It's people like you who are at fault for this. They lean to their own understanding. If they don't like it, they change it. Or they, "invent", their own theories, doctrine, cult and religions.

 

There is only one, "way" to God. Plain and simple.

Science in no way points to god. The reverse, in fact. We know more every day, and as gather more information god gets smaller and smaller. People with religious faith make very specific assertions (based on insufficient evidence) about the nature of reality, and they are demonstrably wrong. Just a cursory glance at the evidence shows this to be the case.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? You are so out of line with this statement. Everything that I see science conjuring up now and days only strengthens my faith in God.

 

This knowledge that you claim you're receiving proves how complicated, delicate, and EXTREMLY random our entire eco-system really is, and SHOULDN'T, (mathematically), even be EXISTING.......how can someone of your, "supposedly", caliber not take that into consideration?

But notice that science does not suggest answers without evidence.

Evidence is just that. "Clues". That's it, that's all. Just about anything scientific can be rebuted, re-examined, and an entirely different conclusion can be drawn. I don't know the exact percentage, but I would say it's the MAJORITY.

You claim to know the origin of the Universe, what you purpose is for being here, and what happens after you die--things no human being can possibly know. And you claim to know these things on no evidence whatsoever. You believe it, therefore it is so.

No evidence? Just because a revelation isn't tangible, isn't able to be physically held in the palm of your hands, it doesn't mean it's not so. I have the very WORD of God Himself. That.....is better than the word of any man, (or woman) on this Earth today.

 

You have just as much passion in your, "revelation". You believe it, therefore it is so????

First, as I have posted many times, I have had a "born-again" experience. I once thought that god was obvious. Then I began to read, and I began to examine my beliefs critically. And I realized that I was wrong.

K, well, based on this statement, my conclusion is that your, "born-again" experience wasn't geniune. Hence, no Holy Spirit, "endwelling", to reveal to you God's truth. That's about all I can say about your experience, except that it's still weighing on you, (heavily), that you didn't follow through with your conversion, and now you're riddled with guilt.

 

You must try with all vigor to put your soul to rest about this, and prove that God, "screwed" you.

 

That's the whole point isn't it?

[Moai]

An invisible mother who never answers you, and doesn't do anything one way or the other. For me, it's mostly in knowing that I am loved no matter how boneheaded I get *smile* ... there doesn't always need to be an answer or an action when I petition God, just the assurance that He is there is enough of an answer, it's in knowing that I"m not alone, expected to figure things out by myself, but rather am part of a mystical relationship with Him, and more directly, with other believers. And that there is a never deviating standard that I can count on. Sounds crazy, but it works for me, and that's what is important in my particular case.

 

Interesting. Since you have a mystical relationship with other believers, does it not follow that you have the opposite with unbelievers? What I mean to say is that do you share this relationship with Muslims, Jainists, or Buddhists?

 

I am not making that up, and I am not making up the fact that millions of people believe this. Most believers do to some extent. And while you see it as faith in the human heart or whatever, the vast majority of believer's don't.

 

oh, I know that there are charlatans who prey on the weak, and should be smote for their behavior.

 

And yet they are not. Our government is reluctant to do anything, as it could be interpreted as an attack on religious faith in general. Notice how moderate believers protect the charlatans in this very case.

 

However, it still boils down to the issue of free will and those people's decision to "give" out of faith. Until they understand that they're being fleeced, and with bad intention, the point is moot ... I cannot force my belief on them or make them share my views simply because it's their decision to make, not mine, no matter how frustrating it is to see them taken advantage of. You cannot help someone who isn't ready to be helped.

 

But they are ready to be helped. They pray for guidance. They ask the Holy Spirit for deliverance. They get these ideas from the Bible. I have been told on these very forums that you must have the Holy Spirit to be able to interpret the Bible correctly, and if you but ask the Holy Spirit will deliver you into Christ's love, etc. These people are doing exactly that, and yet the Holy Spirit is doing nothing to protect them. It isn't telling them that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, it isn't informing them that these men are con men of the worst sort. How can this be, given what the Bible says about such things? How is it that people who hunger for god so desperately can be so misled? Why were you blessed with the ability to see The True Way and they were not?

 

Consider the morality of your position for a moment. In your zeal to protect the irrational beliefs of others, you are allowing them to be ripped off and given hope where there is none. Have you seen the film of people being wheeled in on hospital beds, the children with tragic deformity, the elderly with broken bodies, those dying of cancer flocking into auditoriums in the hopes of being cured? Have you seen them take their money--in a great many cases money they can scarcely afford, money that would be better spent on medicine and put it into the offering plate? None of them are ever cured. Ever. What's worse, is when they remain ill they attribute this fact to their own lack of faith!

 

You know better, and yet because their beliefs, misguided and damaging though they are, must be held sacrosanct. You cannot force your beliefs on others, right? While I may be zealous about the silliness of such things, in point of fact I see people enduring horrible suffering and I want to stop it. Now. Yesterday. And because of this I want to do all I can to stop it. Being notice and respecting their views and saying, "Oh well, you can't help people when they aren't ready" obviously isn't making it. Perhaps none of these people read these forums. But by virtue of the fact that we are having this discussion, maybe, just maybe one person will go to a library instead of the Benny Hinn Crusade. And there is more than just that. But is not this example enough?

 

Your faith makes you feel better. Theirs does, too. Yet you and I both know that they are being fleeced, as you put it, and lied to. How is it that you can see this so easily in their case and not your own? Not only that, but why does religion get a free pas in such things, as if there is one rule for thought and evidence in every sphere but one, and then the rules don't matter? If Benny Hinn were selling aluminum siding he'd have been arrested ages ago.

 

 

I would also add that if your stance is the correct one, why didn't the Bible make tat more clear? How is that a book inspired by God doesn't have a clear definition about how to pray, what to pray for, and how prayer works? Every believer thinks that it does, yet they disagree greatly. How come?

 

Moai, my faith journey may have many similarities to others' but it's uniquely mine, much in the same way that my DNA is uniquely mine or my fingerprints uniquely mine. Therefore, a relationship with God isn't a cookie-cutter thing, because we are all not the same person with the same needs or the same thoughts or dynamics. To say there should only be one interpretation, only one way to pray is to deny that individual's nature and specific needs, much in the way a a general education curriculum can never satisfy the needs of the advanced student or the student with learning disabilities. There's a uniqueness that must be addressed.

 

Fine that you think that. But every organized religion disagrees with you. Hence them being organized. In John, we read, "there is no way to Heaven but through me." Is that metaphorical? Muslims believe that you must pray, facing East, five times a day. You don't get to be individual about it, that's what everyone everywhere MUST do. You disagree, and that's super for you, but the rest of the world doesn't agree with you. And these people would force their beliefs on you in a hot second. And on me, too.

 

factor in the faith aspect, in which God appeals to people in different ways and different times for different reasons, and it's hard to just peghole it into one tidy little equation. You have to remember that the faith journey is not linear, but all over the place, so to speak, because it has no right or wrong path, no matter how hard people want to pigeon-hole the experience so that it can make sense.

 

Well, Heaven's Gate was a faith journey. Far be it from me to call them silly, and pigeonhole them in that way. Not only that, the Ten Commandments aren't metaphorical, are they? Now, for them to mean anything you have to accept that Jehovah is god, true, but once you do you HAVE to adhere to them, don't you? They weren't the Ten Suggestions, right? "Honor the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy" is pretty specific. The fact is that religion IS a tidy little equation. Believe this way, be rewarded in the next life. Condemn certain behaviors, do not allow others the ability to engage in same on pain of death, and you shall be rewarded. In saying that everyone has their own path is a tidy little equation, too.

[quankanne]

Spiritual discussions are best held in the spirit of understanding and open-mindedness, not within the framework of a high school debate.

 

thank you for providing clear and simple phraseology ... I was just going to scream out in all caps, and in spanish to boot, to signify my frustration with the baiting that goes on in the name of "open discussion." Because until there can be a mutual respect for opinions, there is no "enjoyment of sharing" my beliefs with someone who turns a deaf ear to what I try to share. Evangelization is not about thumping another over the head with one's spiritual viewpoint (be it atheistic or theistic).

 

Why should your beliefs be taken seriously, just because you hold them? Because (others) people share the same delusion?

 

*claps in appreciation* this is the very same question I ask a nonbeliever who feels he/she can change my view on God and faith by shoving a totally senseless way of thinking down my throat. What works for me will never work for another, and vice versa, because this experience is mine alone. It is my response to what I understand is a supernatural call. It doesn't supercede intelligence, it doesn't try to ignore or deny it ... it's just a whole new dimension of being.

 

however, I realize that you just can't teach a pig to sing, because it has no concept (much less use) for that capability.

[quankanne]

Interesting. Since you have a mystical relationship with other believers, does it not follow that you have the opposite with unbelievers? What I mean to say is that do you share this relationship with Muslims, Jainists, or Buddhists?

 

yes, I believe I sincerely believe that religion is just a vehicle on the journey to God, and that because we are created in his image, we have that connection. :LOL: I'll prolly have to include that in my next confession, but I'm pretty sure that God will understand even if my priest doesn't ...

 

seriously, though, I think man chooses to use religion to divide rather than to unite themselves to God or Allah or whatever they choose to call Him. It's like we're a varied and colorful flock, and hopefully our experiences will lead us back to the same place, i.e. Him. At least this is what my heart tells me, and it's what I put my faith in, rather than all those dumb little things that try to keep us apart from Him or each other.

[Moai]

Now that's a bold face lie. Of course you do.... You're whole goal here is to rid our site of believers. Or at least, that is the way you'd prefer it.......take it a higher step, and include ridding the world of us believers. What makes you think you can wrestle against these principalities without tickin' someone off?

 

I am not in control of how others react to what I write. But I am not here just to "tick people off." I am going to honest and provide evidence for why I believe the way I do, and that's it. I am aware that such may make some people upset, but that is not my problem. That is not my intention. Do you write just to tick people off? You do quite often, you know.

 

Don't insult my intellegience like that again. You know that I know better.....you're smarter than that.

 

Not my fault that you can't read for meaning. I am not here to make you mad, or anyone else.

 

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.

 

Take a look at this statement for a sec......especially this part: "omnibenevolent, omniscient super-being"......THE only way to convince you, and millions of scientists, or realists, or whatever you want to call yourself is to have been there at the beginning to gather this, "evidence", you seem to be stuck on.

 

Utter nonsense. If there is a God, especially the one you are so insistent exists, we should see evidence of it RIGHT NOW. You claim to have some RIGHT NOW. I have no idea how the Universe came to be. Nobody knows. It may not be possible to know, given the limits of space-time, etc. I don't completely understand it, frankly. Yet you claim to KNOW that which no scientist on the planet suggests he does. Who is arrogant in this case?

 

One single, verifiable miracle would convince me. One prayer answered that deviates from what we would expect based on probability would convince me. What would convince you? As you have admitted on another post, nothing. It is impossible to change your mind. That is because your beliefs are based on dogmatism.

 

SINCE that's impossible, you cannot gather tangible materials to prove otherwise. Unless you were right there witnessing the very Hand of God, you don't have a leg to stand on EITHER.

 

Wrong, yet again. You don't have to be right there. There is such a thing as indirect observation. 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 know that the Universe as it is now "began" about 15 billion years ago. What caused this? Currently unknown. Could it be that the matter was always here? Maybe. I am fine not knowing. I do know that everything has a naturalistic explanation. I may not know it now, but someone someday probably will.

 

Yet you are certain that it was the God described in the Bible. By your own standards you shouldn't believe that, either.

 

But wait! You have an inspired book that makes you certain! What is it about that book that makes you so certain? Oh, that's right, it must be evidence that you have seen in your life, right? By your own admission, you cannot know that it is the Word Of God unless you watched it being inspired?

 

Beyond that, for the umpteenth time, you cannot prove a negative.

 

Your arrogance is indeed the fact that you lean on your own understanding, and the words of flawed human beings to be truth.

 

So do you. A flawed human being told you the Bible was true, and you believed him. And yes, human beings are flawed, and human beings make mistakes. By asking for evidence for certain beliefs, we can examine said evidence and determine it to be valid. it really isn't that tough. You, however, believe that men in the first century, whose understanding of even simple natural processes was virtually nil. Given that humans are flawed, isn't it better to go on the best information we have now, rather than the musings of primitives?

 

Now I don't know you IRL. However, it's very questionable that you're the smartest person on Earth, and I would be willing to bet, not even the brightest individual on this forum.

 

I never said that I was either of those things. And I don't care. Why do you? The intelligence of a person has nothing to do with anything. Either you have evidence, or you don't. I don't test people's IQs and then based on the results accept or deny their claims.

 

I will give you this. You have more faith in limited, mere, human understanding than alot of believers do in God.

 

No, I just accept evidence. The claims you make about god are based on human understanding, by the way.

 

Have you ever had a gut feeling that you were right or wrong in a situation that went against all laws of understanding? If not.....then you're a robot, a troll, or a computer program.......That's an easy one. It's because of people just like you....

 

I have no idea what that means. What are the laws of understanding? I have had experiences that I could not explain right off, but then I examined them and now I can. Happens all the time. I am not sure what the people like you crack is even supposed to mean.

 

And who are people like me, exactly? People who don't accept things on insufficient evidence? 96% of the National Academy of Sciences? 97% of all Nobel Prize winners in science and mathematics?

 

That's right. It's people like you who are at fault for this. They lean to their own understanding. If they don't like it, they change it. Or they, "invent", their own theories, doctrine, cult and religions.

 

What are you talking about? I am not "inventing" anything. By your statement above, I should just accept things because my dad said so, and he because his dad said so, ad infinitum. Do you realize that the very Christian doctrine you know is fairly recent? Someone disagreed with the Status Quo and started a new cult. And now enough people believe it and they have enough buildings that it is a "sect."

 

Beyond that, your statement above relies on human understanding. Why aren't you Muslim? Why aren't you Buddhist? If you have even bothered to check those religions out...You applied your human understanding to the Bible, and reached the answer that it is the One True Word, and that Jesus is god. Right?

 

I don't rely on anyone's understanding. People experiment and rely on data to reach conclusions. I can examine the same information, and decide if their conclusions are valid, or not.

 

There is only one, "way" to God. Plain and simple.ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? You are so out of line with this statement. Everything that I see science conjuring up now and days only strengthens my faith in God.

 

Quankanne disagrees with you. Perhaps you should take that up with her?

 

And given your limited understanding of science (at least as you have expressed on these boards) that doesn't surprise me.

 

This knowledge that you claim you're receiving proves how complicated, delicate, and EXTREMLY random our entire eco-system really is, and SHOULDN'T, (mathematically), even be EXISTING.......how can someone of your, "supposedly", caliber not take that into consideration?

 

Man, you people are obsessed with being better than other people. I never said I was of any particular caliber.

 

Why shouldn't our "eco-system" exist? It is here, so the probability of it existing is 1. In point of fact, it is impossible to truly determine the probability of such things. That is why probability arguments fail. Here is a really good overview of it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

 

Evidence is just that. "Clues". That's it, that's all. Just about anything scientific can be rebuted, re-examined, and an entirely different conclusion can be drawn. I don't know the exact percentage, but I would say it's the MAJORITY.

 

Of course you would, and right there you demonstrate a lack of basic scientific knowledge. There are a great many things that we do not fully understand. There are also a great many that we understand almost completely. It depends on what area of science you are discussing.

 

No evidence? Just because a revelation isn't tangible, isn't able to be physically held in the palm of your hands, it doesn't mean it's not so. I have the very WORD of God Himself. That.....is better than the word of any man, (or woman) on this Earth today.

 

And how do you know it is the Word of God himself? Especially considering it is flat-out wrong about so many things? And why is it constantly being mis-interpreted? The claims you make about science are actually more applicable to your book. There are currently 2500 different forms of Christianity. Each has a different doctrine. Some on these boards claim that the Bible is metaphorical. They, not you, are in the MAJORITY.

 

Not only that, 1.3 billion Muslims think that they have the real word of God.

 

You have just as much passion in your, "revelation". You believe it, therefore it is so????K, well, based on this statement, my conclusion is that your, "born-again" experience wasn't geniune. Hence, no Holy Spirit, "endwelling", to reveal to you God's truth. That's about all I can say about your experience, except that it's still weighing on you, (heavily), that you didn't follow through with your conversion, and now you're riddled with guilt.

 

Good try, but no. It isn't weighing on me in the slightest. I never even talk about it, unless some believer tells me that I haven't had such an experience, because if I did I wouldn't think like I do. Then I show them they are wrong, and then they come out with an ad hoc explanation as you did. At the time, I was as earnest as I could possibly be. So how could the experience not be genuine? Are you suggesting that at the moment I was begging Jesus to come into my heart he refused?

 

You must try with all vigor to put your soul to rest about this, and prove that God, "screwed" you.

 

That's the whole point isn't it?

 

Nope. God didn't do anything to me. God doesn't exist, so he can't do anything to me. My life is actually pretty awesome--no, in all actuality it is TOTALLY awesome. I am happy, I have a great girlfriend, a cool job, and great friends. Couldn't be happier.

 

You are so wrapped up in your dogmatic, black and white thinking that the very idea of someone being happy without believing as you do is beyond your comprehension.

[Moai]

Moai

Your fear for believers reach a high degree.........

If you have power, will you kill us all or put us in jail? well, I forgive you already:p

have a good day:bunny:

 

Nope. I would not hinder your right to believe as you do one little iota. Really, the reason I am so on about this is that your opposites in the world WANT to kill you and put you in jail. And that is horrible. Nobody should be locked up for anything they believe.

 

I just think that people should have reasons for what they believe, especially when those beliefs effect public policy and the treatment of others.

 

Thanks for forgiving me in advance, though.

 

And you know, Christians did exactly those things for about 500 years. Thank you for finally abandoning that.

[Moai]

Why should your beliefs be taken seriously, just because you hold them? Because (others) people share the same delusion?

 

*claps in appreciation* this is the very same question I ask a nonbeliever who feels he/she can change my view on God and faith by shoving a totally senseless way of thinking down my throat. What works for me will never work for another, and vice versa, because this experience is mine alone. It is my response to what I understand is a supernatural call. It doesn't supercede intelligence, it doesn't try to ignore or deny it ... it's just a whole new dimension of being.

 

Good for you, as far as that goes. But my way of thinking works for everybody. In fact, you use it all the time.

 

however, I realize that you just can't teach a pig to sing, because it has no concept (much less use) for that capability.

 

I am not talking about transcendent experiences or spirituality. I am talking about specific claims made by those would would say that there is only one way. Like Moose a few moments ago.

 

Moose says you are wrong. No, he KNOWS you are wrong. He is 100% certain that you are wrong. Why don't you ask him how he reached that conclusion, and see if anything he says leads you to agree with him.

[Moai]

No evidence to prove.

 

Believe by faith, not by sight.

 

Or among full of ***** there is a diamond. Someone focus on the diamond, but someone only focus on the *****. This is how I look at the whole situation:o

 

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

[Moai]

Interesting. Since you have a mystical relationship with other believers, does it not follow that you have the opposite with unbelievers? What I mean to say is that do you share this relationship with Muslims, Jainists, or Buddhists?

 

yes, I believe I sincerely believe that religion is just a vehicle on the journey to God, and that because we are created in his image, we have that connection. :LOL: I'll prolly have to include that in my next confession, but I'm pretty sure that God will understand even if my priest doesn't ...

 

seriously, though, I think man chooses to use religion to divide rather than to unite themselves to God or Allah or whatever they choose to call Him. It's like we're a varied and colorful flock, and hopefully our experiences will lead us back to the same place, i.e. Him. At least this is what my heart tells me, and it's what I put my faith in, rather than all those dumb little things that try to keep us apart from Him or each other.

 

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.

 

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.

[little_girl]

i to believe that they are unanswered prayers...as the garth brooks song says...i keep asking myself what has he done for me lately....?he has not......................................................!!!!!!!i'm lost in this life & keep asking why....what have i done so bad that you would punish me for..........does he answer me no....does he care....don't know.....i'm to the point that i don't care anymore......god sends people to me & then takes them away......F***him....i think he is a cruel & unloving person to make me go through this s###....so i welcome any of you BIBLE BANGERS to prove me wrong~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Moai]

If pizza really tastes good, as so many people claim, why are there so many different toppings and ways of preparing pizza? I don't understand why multiple interpretations of the same basic idea appeal to many different people. This is beyond me.

 

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

 

If you take religious texts that were written by humans who didn't study science and compare them to scientific findings that prove them wrong, this is not a big deal. All you are capable of doing is ruling out a literalist approach to these texts, which says nothing of the millions of faithful people who don't approach Biblical scholarship in this way, and still find value in religious teachings.

 

Maybe. If that is the case, why do the books have any value at all. There are books that have better information than the Bible, and are better written as well. Why do we need the Bible at all?

 

Simply stating that there is no evidence for God is not evidence against God. We lack scientific evidence for God. For you this may be a problem, but for many it is not. Regardless, it's misleading to act as though you have proven that God does not exist.

 

I don't have to prove he doesn't exist, you have to prove he does. And since you can't why should I accept any of your assertions about what he wants, how prayer works, or any of it?

 

It depends. Spiritual discussions are best held in the spirit of understanding and open-mindedness, not within the framework of a high school debate.

 

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

 

Only if your approach to Biblical scholarship is a literalist one.

 

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

 

Except that it's foolish to think God wrote the Bible, whether you're an arugmentative atheist or a devout fundamentalist. It does no good.

 

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?

 

To even think of using that as a premise for your arguments is absurd.

 

Why? People claim that the Bible is literally true all the time. Why am I absurd for taking them up on it? I would be happy to discuss your interpretation of the Bible, but you seem reluctant to post anything about it. You just call Fundamentalists "absurd" and "ridiculous".

 

The number is probably much larger.

 

I was just talking about the people who send money to Focus on the Family. The number of Americans who think the Bible was written by inspired men and is literally true is more than 150 million. Tell me again how absurd I am to argue against that position.

 

Confusing cause and effect, I think.

 

Far enough, I suppose.

 

Because I don't see scripture as a toy. If you'd like to learn how to study sacred texts (and it's the same academic rigor regardless of the text--vedas, quran, etc.) you should take a class. I don't have the time or interest to teach you.

 

You obviously do at some level. You just want to make assertions to make yourself feel better, or something. I actually have no idea. And I have taken classes. So what? It isn't as if these "sacred" texts are only in the hands of scholars who dispense truth once agreed upon, these texts are in the hands of believers who interpret them in any way they see fit. Why am I wrong for examining their point of view on them?

 

It's not that simply that I find your scriptural interpretations laughable, it's that I find them irrelevant.

 

Then why are you even posting? you know as well as I do that I am not making these interpretations up, don't you? Have you read Moose's most recent post? Are you saying his point of view is laughable and irrelevant? Why don't you take that point up with him.

 

At least I respect him enough to tell him why I reject his position, you just declare it to be invalid and absurd and hope to quit the field.

 

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?

 

I am not going to reiterate it, but there are people who believe that interpretation of the Bible, and they are being abused because of it. I find that to be tragic, not irrelevant. But you have no compassion for someone who doesn't know how to interpret "sacred texts" (supposedly), or who doesn't understand the historical context of the Bible, so who cares.

 

Perhaps you'd be a better one to discourage them; I don't care much about how they spend their time.

 

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.

 

The millions of people, both the millions who have faith and the millions who don't, aren't really part of my personal beliefs. I'm not looking for approval. I take my beliefs seriously, because I am thoroughly convinced that I have interacted with God.

 

Yes, you are. Or you wouldn't be here. Why did you post to me at all? You know full well I was addressing those who take the Bible more literally than you, but you felt the need to jump in and (wrongly) accuse me of using strawman arguments, etc. To what end?

 

And FYI, as seen in Moose's last post, I wasn't using strawman arguments at all, now was I? I hope you are better at apologizing than you are at posting evidence.

 

Are you specifically referring to the passage in Leviticus that condemns homosexual acts?

 

It's in the Bible because it was extremely common for people to participate in fertility rituals that involved homosexual acts. This not only causes turmoil at home, but can lead to disease, and most importantly to a priestly caste that has a vested interest in people properly practicing Judaism, it's not good for you to participate in the rituals of a competing religion. This is why it was made ritually unclean, which is sometimes translated as "abomination," but reading Hebrew, I know better.

 

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."

 

And: We can allow some discrepancy in minor areas of translation, but, on something as important as sexual ethics, are we really to believe the Bible translators we rely on got it wrong five different times, in two different testaments? And only on the Scriptures regarding homosexuality? (Pro-gay apologists seem to have no problem with the other Scriptures condemning sins like adultery and child abuse.)

 

Great that you know better, and I hope that makes you happy, sequestered in your room interacting with god. We out here have to deal with these people, and perhaps unbeknownst to you, more people read that website in an hour than will ever read your posts here. I am glad you knowledge is making you feel better, and that you don't care what others believe. 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!

 

The passage was written before homosexuality as a concept existed, and plenty of Christians don't consider it sinful to be gay, even to act on it. This may be a minority opinion, but even outside the Christian community homosexuals have a tough time gaining acceptance. You still have not proven that religion causes people to hate gays, only shown how many who hate gays use religion to justify it.

 

It isn't the only reason, but it is the best and most popular one. And as i wrote before, it is the only one that leads people to kill them.

 

For example, the Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization who uses religious rhetoric. There is not evidence, however, that religion causes them to be racist. There is only evidence that they use religious rhetoric in their racism. The burden of proof would be on someone making the assertion that religion causes racism in KKK members to actually show evidence of causation.

 

Not really. I take your point, but there is nothing in the Bible that I am aware of that refers to race in this way. They just torture the Bible to make them say what they want it to. But the Bible does say what the gay-bashers say it does. interpret it as you will.

 

You might also say that 1700 years of anti-semitism 9based on the Bible) is informing their opinion.

 

The fact remains that these people aren't going after foot-fetishists. How come? Gee, I don't know, is it because there is nothing about foot fetishes in the Bible?

 

Assumption-based analysis of anecdotal evidence is not logically sound. Neither is a vague statement about having more of the same, worthless anecdotal evidence.

 

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. Why don't you?

 

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof.

 

I'm not making a claim about religion causing homophobia; I'm examining yours, and it turns out you don't have sound evidence for it.

 

Nope. I am using hatred of homosexuals as an example of how religious faith influences behavior and larger society. And my point stands. Why are evangelicals the most rabid homophobes in our culture? It isn't as if someone wanders around saying, "Gee, I hate fags. Which church is for me?" and then selects Evangelical Christianity. Most people become the religion their parents are. Most people learn their attitudes from their parents. 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--especially when I can see it with my own eyes? You can read it for yourself. Again, I am just taking people at their word.

 

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.