A question about prayer...

[naturalmwa]

Now you're just being a dbag. How did you take my comment and get "Now nothing in the Bible applies to today's society"?

you can't write a book pertaining to a society you have no knowledge of.

That means the Bible can't be trusted on any topic. When the book says something, it only applies to that time and that society when it was written. Its all just stories now, there can be no biblical authority or objective rule set by the standard you just set out. That's a wise progression in your thinking. You should embrace the wisdom you stumbled upon.

 

[Fan In Black]

If you dont believe in a faiths one specific god, why pray to them? Just pray and if they are the one and only god they will pick that shit up. I dont think you have to adress god by name unless you believe there are many gods.

 

[at4iowa]

The true test is when somebody is prayed for, and they don't know about it. A blind test. That has been tried, with no positive results.

So whether or not it's psychological or Devine intervention is relevant, as it dictates when prayer might work and when it won't.

Devine intervention is real!

Divine intervention, not so much.

 

[naturalmwa]

Christian god doesn't listen to the gays, the people of the south will tell you so (you should know this ATL).

Don't you know, those rules only applied to that society at that time. We have no guidance on how God feels about gays or anything in our society. The Bible holds no answers for today. Sounds like it's time for prophet Natural to write a new testament and profit.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Another science denier. You probably deny climate change science, too.

I'm going to start calling you Trump.

Clinical Investigation
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer

Background

Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

Methods

Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

Results

In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.

So those who KNEW they would be prayed for did worse. It's science.

 

[strummingram]

Sounds like it's time for prophet Natural to write a new testament and profit.

Prophet don't write testaments. Their followers do. The followers modify it, of course.

 

[unoHawkeye]

That means the Bible can't be trusted on any topic. When the book says something, it only applies to that time and that society when it was written. Its all just stories now, there can be no biblical authority or objective rule set by the standard you just set out. That's a wise progression in your thinking. You should embrace the wisdom you stumbled upon.

Well I do agree with your stance on biblical authority. I don't live my life based on my interpretation of the Bible word for word, and I don't suggest that anybody else do either. But I also incorporate many of the teachings (taught through the stories) into my life.

For example: The bible saying that tattoos and homosexuality are evil would (IMO) be examples of outdated teachings. I'm cool with both tattoos and gays. However messages taught through many of the Bible's stories, like the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, etc. are outstanding guides to living your life, and I believe are pretty timeless.

I would hope that you don't "distrust" the Bible when it says "Love others as you love yourself." That's my point.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You can't prove the non existence of a higher power. No one can.

You can't prove the non-existence of unicorns or leprechauns either. Poor reason to believe in them.

 

[naturalmwa]

Prophet don't write testaments. Their followers do. The followers modify it, of course.

I always thought that was a major flaw. God transforms himself into a man who has a very important message, yet he forgets to teach himself how to write. Its a new society, new rules, new opportunities to improve on God.

In your belief system, do you pray?

 

[naturalmwa]

Well I do agree with your stance on biblical authority. I don't live my life based on my interpretation of the Bible word for word, and I don't suggest that anybody else do either. But I also incorporate many of the teachings (taught through the stories) into my life.

For example: The bible saying that tattoos and homosexuality are evil would (IMO) be examples of outdated teachings. I'm cool with both tattoos and gays. However messages taught through many of the Bible's stories, like the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, etc. are outstanding guides to living your life, and I believe are pretty timeless.

I would hope that you don't "distrust" the Bible when it says "Love others as you love yourself." That's my point.

You're almost there. I no more trust the bible when it delivers some wisdom than I trust Apollo when he does. All that wisdom is from humans. That's who you are worshiping. Welcome to humanism.

 

[unoHawkeye]

You're almost there. I no more trust the bible when it delivers some wisdom than I trust Apollo when he does. All that wisdom is from humans. That's who you are worshiping. Welcome to humanism.

Wrong.

 

[naturalmwa]

Wrong.

I did say almost. What you describe is humanism, you just aren't ready to admit it. You are worshiping human philosophy, not anything devine. You have neutered the divine elements out of your belief system. You should take pride in that. This is the problem with getting intelligent about religion. The moment that happens, religion falls apart. In reality, only the biblical literalists are actually religious.

 

[artradley]

Devine intervention is real!

Divine intervention, not so much.

Lol -- I missed that!

 

[BrianNole09]

You can't prove the non-existence of unicorns or leprechauns either. Poor reason to believe in them.

Right. My point was that Radley said there is no higher power. I was responding to his post, which I quoted.

Even an old, egomaniac like Radley doesn't know if there's a higher power, was my point.

 

[at4iowa]

Well I do agree with your stance on biblical authority. I don't live my life based on my interpretation of the Bible word for word, and I don't suggest that anybody else do either. But I also incorporate many of the teachings (taught through the stories) into my life.

For example: The bible saying that tattoos and homosexuality are evil would (IMO) be examples of outdated teachings. I'm cool with both tattoos and gays. However messages taught through many of the Bible's stories, like the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, etc. are outstanding guides to living your life, and I believe are pretty timeless.

I would hope that you don't "distrust" the Bible when it says "Love others as you love yourself." That's my point.

So you pick and choose what resonates with your personal beliefs of what is right/moral. The golden rule can be found in writings way older than the bible, so don't give the bible credit for that one. The first 4 of the 10 commandments basically tell you to kiss god's butt. The 5th one is pretty vague and the other five are "no crap" statements. Do you really need the bible to tell you not to kill, cheat on your wife, steal or lie? The problem with the bible is that it is so incredibly vague and has so many contradictory stories that it is open to wild interpretation. You can use Bible passages to defend virtually any moral position including public stoning.

 

[strummingram]

I always thought that was a major flaw. God transforms himself into a man who has a very important message, yet he forgets to teach himself how to write. Its a new society, new rules, new opportunities to improve on God.

In your belief system, do you pray?

Absolutely.
Prayer, meditation, reflection, taking a specific time to ground myself and focus my thoughts and feelings and align myself. I do it more and more frequently.

 

[Pepperman]

You can't prove the non-existence of unicorns or leprechauns either. Poor reason to believe in them.

What if there were thousands of people who saw unicorns or leprechauns 2000 years ago and passed along the stories they saw with their own eyes? Then the questions you must answer are bigger... I can't claim to know what each of those questions are, and I generally avoid these debates because I find "your side" wants to fight instead of agree to disagree. I've never understood that mentality, but it is always the non-believers that get angry.

 

[Lone Clone]

Don't you know, those rules only applied to that society at that time. We have no guidance on how God feels about gays or anything in our society. The Bible holds no answers for today. Sounds like it's time for prophet Natural to write a new testament and profit.

The Bible is a living document, like the Constitution; you only have to believe the stuff that's convenient to believe.

 

[at4iowa]

What if there were thousands of people who saw unicorns or leprechauns 2000 years ago and passed along the stories they saw with their own eyes? Then the questions you must answer are bigger... I can't claim to know what each of those questions are, and I generally avoid these debates because I find "your side" wants to fight instead of agree to disagree. I've never understood that mentality, but it is always the non-believers that get angry.

I don't see anyone getting angry here and you are wrong. You see a bunch of atheists killing doctors who perform abortions or quoting bible passages about why god hates fags? It seems that the believers are plenty angry and unfortunately much less tolerant.

 

[BrianNole09]

I don't see anyone getting angry here and you are wrong. You see a bunch of atheists killing doctors who perform abortions or quoting bible passages about why god hates fags? It seems that the believers are plenty angry and unfortunately much less tolerant.

You're going to have to get an Avatar before you spout such jibberish.

Thanks

 

[artradley]

Right. My point was that Radley said there is no higher power. I was responding to his post, which I quoted.

Even an old, egomaniac like Radley doesn't know if there's a higher power, was my point.

I'm an egomaniac? Says the guy who claims he knows how the universe was created, what awaits us after death, and the proper way to live and think in order to attain eternal life.

Please quote me saying "there is no higher power". Otherwise you're lying.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

If you believe in an all knowing, all powerful God, predestination flows as the logical requirement. Do you believe your God has those qualities? You don't have to make God so super, but it's my understanding that most believers like this notion of a supergod. Note the biblical God often doesn't fit this description, so you certainly could believe in a flawed or limited type of deity. Do you? If God is the supergod variety, then prayer is just whining hubris that fails to respect the supergod's perfect plan. No different than the child constantly complaining about its bed time and demanding the parent change. And in my household, constant complaining about the rules did carry a risk. Under the supergod construct, prayer is really a form of disobedience, at least if you are asking for anything.

I've encountered the Catholic saint ritual and found it underwhelming, not at all remarkable. I'd say the proof of that is provided by your fellow believers. For if the Catholics were really producing proof of miracles as they claim, other churches would recognize the divine hand at play and celebrate the event too. The standard of proof employed by Catholics is not very strong IMO. Nor is the corollary between prayer and health. Studies have sometimes found that prayer leads to more negative outcomes. You can't claim science proves the benefits of prayer and be believed. That's not the lay of the land.

Whoa, I said science has confirmed there is a positive correlation between prayer and positive health outcomes. That's it. The simple fact of the matter is science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. And, sure, what's remarkable to me may not be remarkable to you or anyone else, as far as canonized saints, or anything else for that matter, is concerned. However, just because people do not value it or believe any of it is meritorious, doesn't mean it lacks intrinsic value or validity. There was a point in time people believed the world was flat, but that doesn't mean that the truth of the world being round did not stand on its own merits.

The paradigm you are using to repudiate that logic and reasoning can be applied to a belief in God or a Higher Power is significantly flawed. For one, again, you assume the Calvinist viewpoint of God is the only one that is logical to construct an argument for an omnipotent, omniscient God. It also seems you believe the Bible teaches a Calvinist viewpoint--at least, that's my interpretation of one of the main cruxes of your anti-God rhetoric. Regardless, you are constructing the majority of your argument from the vantage point that God isn't real and proceeding from there--and since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God--the foundation of your argument is already significantly flawed to begin with.

Additionally, the other problem with your argument is you assume that God can not exist outside the bounds of time, space, and matter (which is a belief it seems Albert Einstein had, btw). You also assume God's motive or purpose in creating humanity. Well, and assuming God does exist for argument's sake, it seems quite apparent to me that God had two choices when creating human beings: 1) Make them into robots or 2) Make them with the capacity for logic and reasoning and give them the free will to choose right or wrong. Again, assuming there is a God, we can only speculate the reasons why God chose the latter. I believe because love is only valid when it is freely chosen is why God made us that way. For example, for me at least, I would rather be loved because my girlfriend chooses to love me, of her own free will and volition, and not because she is robotic and pre-wired and pre-programmed to do so. If she isn't given a choice, there's no real meaning behind her "love" for me, because it doesn't come from her own free will. Therefore, if God seeks the same type of authentic relationship with humanity, then clearly the only choice is to create imperfect human beings with the capacity to choose good or evil. And ultimately, free will has consequences and creates chaos.

Regardless, using the faults and limitations of mankind as evidence that a God or Higher Power is flawed and consequently must be concluded doesn't exist is at best circular reasoning. Because, again, you are constructing a significant part of your argument under the assumption an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God would not create an imperfect, chaotic world and universe subject to many evolutionary principles. That is not proof. That is conjecture and again, at best, circular reasoning. It also erroneously assumes God has limitations as a result.

Look, I get it, it seems you are very ardently atheist. So I understand you will summarily disregard any notion that God might exist. That is certainly your right to do so. However, the greater point is that it is in fact more reflective of a hubris that you try to substantiate the belief in nothingness as being unequivocal in it's logic and merits in comparison to any sort of belief in the divine. In fact, it could be argued that you are more pretentious in your inexorable, unencumbered belief in nothingness in comparison to someone who believes God unequivocally does exist. Absolutely, religious fanaticism, insane interpretations of religious texts/scripture, dogma, etc., can, does, and has existed throughout human history. However, it takes a hell of a lot more faith to believe in nothingness than it does in something humanity will never be able to fully explain (God).

Beyond what I've written, I have nothing more to say on the matter. You're entitled to your beliefs, like anyone else. Good day.

 

[artradley]

What if there were thousands of people who saw unicorns or leprechauns 2000 years ago and passed along the stories they saw with their own eyes? Then the questions you must answer are bigger... I can't claim to know what each of those questions are, and I generally avoid these debates because I find "your side" wants to fight instead of agree to disagree. I've never understood that mentality, but it is always the non-believers that get angry.

I wouldn't believe those claims, either. Just as I don't believe the stories of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, the ancient Greeks, etc. But a couple of points worth mentioning. First, there's no evidence that "thousands" of people claim to have been spoken to by God. Second, the "anger" you see seems to be dependent upon which side you're on. From my vantage point it's the Christians who get angry in these threads.

 

[naturalmwa]

Absolutely.
Prayer, meditation, reflection, taking a specific time to ground myself and focus my thoughts and feelings and align myself. I do it more and more frequently.

Do you consider meditation and reflection forms of prayer? I suppose I could see that fitting in with your theology. Do dreams have a divine relationship in your thinking?

 

[Pepperman]

I wouldn't believe those claims, either.

Nobody's forcing you to. In fact, this country is founded on you having the right to believe what you wish to believe.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

The true test is when somebody is prayed for, and they don't know about it. A blind test. That has been tried, with no positive results.

So whether or not it's psychological or Devine intervention is relevant, as it dictates when prayer might work and when it won't.

I agree. But it still does can not definitively confirm or disprove the effectiveness or merits of prayer. If you believe in the validity of the Bible, the Bible consistently teaches us rules for effective prayer do apply. In other words, not all prayers are created equal (lol). Additionally, people have been prayed for without their knowledge and have had positive results. It is, admittedly, rare.

I do agree, however, in the power of our thoughts, and that there is a positive correlation between positive people in tuned with others' prayers and healing. My personal view is that prayer is a vehicle or conduit. If you connect with God from it, and again, there are Biblical precepts and guidelines for effective prayer in being able to do so, amazing results can occur. Some times, however, God's answer is no. Why is anyone's guess.

 

[naturalmwa]

The Bible is a living document, like the Constitution; you only have to believe the stuff that's convenient to believe.

I like it, a religion by, of and for the people, AKA: humanism.

 

[unoHawkeye]

So you pick and choose what resonates with your personal beliefs of what is right/moral. The golden rule can be found in writings way older than the bible, so don't give the bible credit for that one. The first 4 of the 10 commandments basically tell you to kiss god's butt. The 5th one is pretty vague and the other five are "no crap" statements. Do you really need the bible to tell you not to kill, cheat on your wife, steal or lie? The problem with the bible is that it is so incredibly vague and has so many contradictory stories that it is open to wild interpretation. You can use Bible passages to defend virtually any moral position including public stoning.

That's exactly what I do. I don't NEED the Bible to tell me anything. In fact, if the Bible was never written, I'd likely live my life pretty similarly to how I do now. That said, after my analysis and interpretation of the Bible, I've found a lot of messages that I consider valuable (and some I don't) that I incorporate into my daily life. No, I don't need the Bible to tell me not to kill somebody else, but that doesn't make the Ten Commandments any less valuable of a moral guide.

And your problem with the Bible is completely accurate. Islamic terrorists use the Bible/Koran as the basis for their destructive actions. However, I'd argue that many terrorists use religion as a platform for power and fear, and would be doing the same stuff without the Koran too.

 

[artradley]

Whoa, I said science has confirmed there is a positive correlation between prayer and positive health outcomes. That's it. The simple fact of the matter is science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. And, sure, what's remarkable to me may not be remarkable to you or anyone else, as far as canonized saints, or anything else for that matter, is concerned. However, just because people do not value it or believe any of it is meritorious, doesn't mean it lacks intrinsic value or validity. There was a point in time people believed the world was flat, but that doesn't mean that the truth of the world being round did not stand on its own merits.

The paradigm you are using to repudiate that logic and reasoning can be applied to a belief in God or a Higher Power is significantly flawed. For one, again, you assume the Calvinist viewpoint of God is the only one that is logical to construct an argument for an omnipotent, omniscient God. It also seems you believe the Bible teaches a Calvinist viewpoint--at least, that's my interpretation of one of the main cruxes of your anti-God rhetoric. Regardless, you are constructing the majority of your argument from the vantage point that God isn't real and proceeding from there--and since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God--the foundation of your argument is already significantly flawed to begin with.

Additionally, the other problem with your argument is you assume that God can not exist outside the bounds of time, space, and matter (which is a belief it seems Albert Einstein had, btw). You also assume God's motive or purpose in creating humanity. Well, and assuming God does exist for argument's sake, it seems quite apparent to me that God had two choices when creating human beings: 1) Make them into robots or 2) Make them with the capacity for logic and reasoning and give them the free will to choose right or wrong. Again, assuming there is a God, we can only speculate the reasons why God chose the latter. I believe because love is only valid when it is freely chosen is why God made us that way. For example, for me at least, I would rather be loved because my girlfriend chooses to love me, of her own free will and volition, and not because she is robotic and pre-wired and pre-programmed to do so. If she isn't given a choice, there's no real meaning behind her "love" for me, because it doesn't come from her own free will. Therefore, if God seeks the same type of authentic relationship with humanity, then clearly the only choice is to create imperfect human beings with the capacity to choose good or evil. And ultimately, free will has consequences and creates chaos.

Regardless, using the faults and limitations of mankind as evidence that a God or Higher Power is flawed and consequently must be concluded doesn't exist is at best circular reasoning. Because, again, you are constructing a significant part of your argument under the assumption an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God would not create an imperfect, chaotic world and universe subject to many evolutionary principles. That is not proof. That is conjecture and again, at best, circular reasoning. It also erroneously assumes God has limitations as a result.

Look, I get it, it seems you are very ardently atheist. So I understand you will summarily disregard any notion that God might exist. That is certainly your right to do so. However, the greater point is that it is in fact more reflective of a hubris that you try to substantiate the belief in nothingness as being unequivocal in it's logic and merits in comparison to any sort of belief in the divine. In fact, it could be argued that you are more pretentious in your inexorable, unencumbered belief in nothingness in comparison to someone who believes God unequivocally does exist. Absolutely, religious fanaticism, insane interpretations of religious texts/scripture, dogma, etc., can, does, and has existed throughout human history. However, it takes a hell of a lot more faith to believe in nothingness than it does in something humanity will never be able to fully explain (God).

Beyond what I've written, I have nothing more to say on the matter. You're entitled to your beliefs, like anyone else. Good day.

I can't see much of anything in your post that responds to anything Natural has said.

To the extent that you responded to the "free will" issue, it seems clear you don't understand the logical conundrum presented to those who believe both a)man has free will, and b)God knows what the future holds. If God knows what "choice" you are going to make, even before you've made it, then your choice is pre-ordained. Which is contradictory to free will. Natural was simply pointing out this logical inconsistency between omniscience and free will.

And absolutely people who disbelieve in mankind's mythologies are standing on firmer logical ground than those who are willing to believe ardently (have faith, as you will) that for which there is poor evidence. Natural didn't say "there is no way there could possibly be any kind of god." He's said without evidence it seems illogical to believe it. One doesn't have to insist on "nothingness" to reject religion.

 

[BrianNole09]

I wouldn't believe those claims, either. Just as I don't believe the stories of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, the ancient Greeks, etc. But a couple of points worth mentioning. First, there's no evidence that "thousands" of people claim to have been spoken to by God. Second, the "anger" you see seems to be dependent upon which side you're on. From my vantage point it's the Christians who get angry in these threads.

500 people claimed to have seen Jesus after he was crucified.

How many witnesses would it take for you to believe them?

 

[artradley]

I agree. But it still does can not definitively confirm or disprove the effectiveness or merits of prayer. If you believe in the validity of the Bible, the Bible consistently teaches us rules for effective prayer do apply. In other words, not all prayers are created equal (lol). Additionally, people have been prayed for without their knowledge and have had positive results. It is, admittedly, rare.

I do agree, however, in the power of our thoughts, and that there is a positive correlation between positive people in tuned with others' prayers and healing. My personal view is that prayer is a vehicle or conduit. If you connect with God from it, and again, there are Biblical precepts and guidelines for effective prayer in being able to do so, amazing results can occur. Some times, however, God's answer is no. Why is anyone's guess.

Well, it certainly does disprove the effectiveness of prayer outside of psychological assistance; because prayers that people did not know about had no effect. As far as your bolded part, this is pretty much nonsense.

 

[artradley]

500 people claimed to have seen Jesus after he was crucified.

How many witnesses would it take for you to believe them?

Quick correction to your post. One person (whoever wrote the verse) claims that 500 people saw it. This is significantly different than 500 people claiming they witnessed it. This is hearsay, and not the kind of evidence on which to make important decisions. It's not in any history book -- because it fails the test we use for documenting something as fact.

Listen, when I lived in Texas there had been a prophecy of some kind in which the virgin Mary was going to appear in the skies on a specific day in Lubbock. Thousands of people flocked there, and the day was well recorded. Nothing happened. And yet, dozens of people claimed they saw her appear. This is simply the worst kind of evidence.

 

[LuteHawk]

Christianity believes that the Holy Bible is the Word
of God. The purpose of the Bible is show people that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the
world

God is the author of the Holy Bible. He inspired the
prophets, evangelists, and apostles to write His Word.
The Old Testament tells us the promises of the coming
Savior. The New Testament tells us that the Savior
has come. He lived, died on the cross and rose
from the grave to give eternal life to all who believe
in Him.

 

[hawkeyekid]

A 20'something guy in my office posted on FB that his brother unexpected died (no pic, no cause of death given) this weekend. I don't really believe in Jesus as a true Christian would. I believe he was a real person but I don't believe in the son of God, Virgin Mary stuff.

My question... If I pray to the Christian (or whatever really) God and ask for peace and healing for him and his family, would this God listen? Assuming, of course, said God really exists.

Edit: The guy in my office, and his family, are devout Christians so I know they would at least appreciate it and it is what they would want. But, still... would God listen and perhaps bring extra healing and peace because of my prayer?

No, he wouldn't. God is all knowing. He doesn't need to be reminded to give or not give peace to a family.

 

[strummingram]

Do you consider meditation and reflection forms of prayer? I suppose I could see that fitting in with your theology. Do dreams have a divine relationship in your thinking?

I guess they cold be prayer. Prayer is a sort of meditation. Prayer is a focusing of your thoughts and energy, I guess.

I don't really have much of a handle on dreams and their place. I'm a work in progress.

 

[strummingram]

It amazes me how God is a "He" even now. Humans need for God to have a penis for some reason.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

Well I do agree with your stance on biblical authority. I don't live my life based on my interpretation of the Bible word for word, and I don't suggest that anybody else do either. But I also incorporate many of the teachings (taught through the stories) into my life.

For example: The bible saying that tattoos and homosexuality are evil would (IMO) be examples of outdated teachings. I'm cool with both tattoos and gays. However messages taught through many of the Bible's stories, like the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, etc. are outstanding guides to living your life, and I believe are pretty timeless.

I would hope that you don't "distrust" the Bible when it says "Love others as you love yourself." That's my point.

Here's the deal though on that biblical guidance. What if you are full of self-loathing like me? Am I not doing my fellow man a disservice if I hate them as much as I hate myself at times?

Very confusing...

 

[unoHawkeye]

Here's the deal though on that biblical guidance. What if you are full of self-loathing like me? Am I not doing my fellow man a disservice if I hate them as much as I hate myself at times?

Very confusing...

I'll pray for you

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The only baptism you need to become a Christian is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (a gift from God) after you have accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior. Any ritual requiring physical 'baptism' is only symbolic and a public display of faith.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

Wonder why Jesus ordered us to baptize? Was Jesus into telling us to do useless symbolic things that have no purpose?

 

[naturalmwa]

Whoa, I said science has confirmed there is a positive correlation between prayer and positive health outcomes. That's it. The simple fact of the matter is science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. And, sure, what's remarkable to me may not be remarkable to you or anyone else, as far as canonized saints, or anything else for that matter, is concerned. However, just because people do not value it or believe any of it is meritorious, doesn't mean it lacks intrinsic value or validity. There was a point in time people believed the world was flat, but that doesn't mean that the truth of the world being round did not stand on its own merits.

The paradigm you are using to repudiate that logic and reasoning can be applied to a belief in God or a Higher Power is significantly flawed. For one, again, you assume the Calvinist viewpoint of God is the only one that is logical to construct an argument for an omnipotent, omniscient God. It also seems you believe the Bible teaches a Calvinist viewpoint--at least, that's my interpretation of one of the main cruxes of your anti-God rhetoric. Regardless, you are constructing the majority of your argument from the vantage point that God isn't real and proceeding from there--and since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God--the foundation of your argument is already significantly flawed to begin with.

Additionally, the other problem with your argument is you assume that God can not exist outside the bounds of time, space, and matter (which is a belief it seems Albert Einstein had, btw). You also assume God's motive or purpose in creating humanity. Well, and assuming God does exist for argument's sake, it seems quite apparent to me that God had two choices when creating human beings: 1) Make them into robots or 2) Make them with the capacity for logic and reasoning and give them the free will to choose right or wrong. Again, assuming there is a God, we can only speculate the reasons why God chose the latter. I believe because love is only valid when it is freely chosen is why God made us that way. For example, for me at least, I would rather be loved because my girlfriend chooses to love me, of her own free will and volition, and not because she is robotic and pre-wired and pre-programmed to do so. If she isn't given a choice, there's no real meaning behind her "love" for me, because it doesn't come from her own free will. Therefore, if God seeks the same type of authentic relationship with humanity, then clearly the only choice is to create imperfect human beings with the capacity to choose good or evil. And ultimately, free will has consequences and creates chaos.

Regardless, using the faults and limitations of mankind as evidence that a God or Higher Power is flawed and consequently must be concluded doesn't exist is at best circular reasoning. Because, again, you are constructing a significant part of your argument under the assumption an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God would not create an imperfect, chaotic world and universe subject to many evolutionary principles. That is not proof. That is conjecture and again, at best, circular reasoning. It also erroneously assumes God has limitations as a result.

Look, I get it, it seems you are very ardently atheist. So I understand you will summarily disregard any notion that God might exist. That is certainly your right to do so. However, the greater point is that it is in fact more reflective of a hubris that you try to substantiate the belief in nothingness as being unequivocal in it's logic and merits in comparison to any sort of belief in the divine. In fact, it could be argued that you are more pretentious in your inexorable, unencumbered belief in nothingness in comparison to someone who believes God unequivocally does exist. Absolutely, religious fanaticism, insane interpretations of religious texts/scripture, dogma, etc., can, does, and has existed throughout human history. However, it takes a hell of a lot more faith to believe in nothingness than it does in something humanity will never be able to fully explain (God).

Beyond what I've written, I have nothing more to say on the matter. You're entitled to your beliefs, like anyone else. Good day.

This is a lot to digest, I may not get to it all. That's not a "whoa" statement. I'm pointing out you are just wrong that science confirms a positive correlation between prayer and health. I didn't claim your insinuation that we were proving the existence of God. I kept it narrow and provided evidence that the correlation has actually been shown to be slightly negative, where prayer harms health.

True things like the roundness of the earth have intrinsic value. You can't claim your sainthood miracles are up to that standard hence you can't claim they are true with intrinsic value. In fact they appear to not even have value to other Christians who roll their eyes at the Catholic claims of proof.

I do assume predestination is the logical conclusion of a belief in an omnipotent, omniscient God. You have yet to present any logical reasoning to counter that. But I don't claim the bible supports that type of supergod. I specifically said it did not. The biblical god makes mistakes, doesn't know everything, is limited in his powers and requires certain assists from others to act. A limited god makes prayer more reasonable in that the god may not know a thing until its communicated. Or a limited god may require the participation of the believer to take action. But an omnipotent, omniscient supergod concept doesn't.

Now if you are going to adopt the Einstein god concept you need to admit you are no longer arguing for the god of Abraham and you are rejecting the biblical basis your argument has depended on thus far. Is that your position? I'm trying to argue your beliefs as a courtesy. It seems beyond the scope to expect you to defend Einstein's belief just as its beyond the scope to assume I couldn't attack them rationally if you wished to change the topic.

Now assuming we are getting back to the bible, we can't assume your 2 options are real. The Bible supports the notion that God didn't want people to have free will. When Eve acted on free will, God punished her and every human that would ever be. God clearly wanted robots. Free will is a sin according to the bible. Humans are supposed to do as they are told by god or his representative. Which is why governments loved Christianity for so long.

You are assuming a lot of arguments I haven't actually made. Thats sort of interesting to me. Is this screed you are giving us something from an apologist playbook? I don't mind arguing these points, its just that you are the first to introduce them here and giving me the credit. I do agree that an imperfect world is a problem if you insist on believing in a perfect god concept. You can't blame free will for disease or much of the world's suffering or chaos. I know gays create earthquakes and hurricanes, but floods are clearly all on Yahweh. Recall that the original plan was not to have any of that. So you can't even claim that God is consistent of had a plan at all that includes our current state. But I see no reason you have to be held to defending the perfect supergod standard. So let's first get you to answer if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God? Do you consider that God to be Yahweh of the Bible?

Again you are making up arguments for me that I have not made. I have not claimed a belief in nothingness. That is a bearing false witness on your part. That's why I suspect this post of yours is some edited copy and paste job from some other source. Which makes your valediction at the end very telling. You appear to just like the sound of your arguments with no need to relate them to my actual words. I didn't even post in this thread a defense of atheism, although you are correct that is my position. A position that isn't the same as a belief in nothingness, but simply a lack of faith in any of the stories that believers tell. My arguments in this thread all assumed a supergod concept existed. I met you on your ground and argued for why prayer to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God was illogical and perhaps even dangerous.