Let us see the power of prayer!

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-23 01:37am

Prayer, at least for this fellow, seems to be more about getting his own life in order then anything. The same reason that native americans would do those odd spirit quests way back when. The same reason I occasionally avoid sleep for days at a time. The other things he mentioned would support my theory. It's more about getting his own life in order then getting in touch with some 'divine being.' That's his feeling of god. Or so I believe...

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2005-06-23 01:40am

McC wrote:
chaoschristian wrote:And prayer is just one part of it, it is just one of the disciplines. There's also readind the Bible, worshipping in community, fasting, tithing, silence, aiding the poor, sick and imprisoned - to name a few.
Show me a Christian who read the Bible fully, and I'll show you an atheist or a bigot.

I tend to stay out of SLAM, but I'll pop in on this. I'm Christian and I've read the whole thing. (KJV anyway)

And as for If I'm a "Real" Christian I'd like a further definition so that I'll be able to back up my claim.

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-06-23 01:42am

Show me a Christian who read the Bible fully, and I'll show you an atheist or a bigot.

And I can show you more who have entered into seminary and have come out the same way.

Life tests faith - every second of every minute of every day.

But tell me, how do you define "fully" here? Cover to cover? Or very carefully using systemic theology? Or what? It almost seems that you saying that anyone who reads the Bible must turn into an atheist or bigot because of what the Bible contains to be read. Help me your point here please.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-06-23 01:44am

Zero wrote:Prayer, at least for this fellow, seems to be more about getting his own life in order then anything. The same reason that native americans would do those odd spirit quests way back when. The same reason I occasionally avoid sleep for days at a time. The other things he mentioned would support my theory. It's more about getting his own life in order then getting in touch with some 'divine being.' That's his feeling of god. Or so I believe...

See, this is what I don't get about religions. Why ascribe something like this to an external force when it's ultimately yourself from whom you seek and receive the answers? It's a foolish, delusional extra step and I am hard-pressed to understand why, beyond overwhelming popular support, belief in a higher being is not classified as a form of schizophrenia.

MariusRoi wrote:And as for If I'm a "Real" Christian I'd like a further definition so that I'll be able to back up my claim.

Depends on your denomination. If you're one of those that think the Bible is the absolute word of God, boy-howdy are you and I gonna have a few fun things to say to each other. If you think it's a bunch of parables written by men with an agenda, but with a few nuggets of wisdom here and there, then that's fine. But I challenge you to get the head of your religious order to agree with that.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-06-23 01:47am

chaoschristian wrote:And I can show you more who have entered into seminary and have come out the same way.

Life tests faith - every second of every minute of every day.

But tell me, how do you define "fully" here? Cover to cover? Or very carefully using systemic theology? Or what? It almost seems that you saying that anyone who reads the Bible must turn into an atheist or bigot because of what the Bible contains to be read. Help me your point here please.

I'm saying that the Bible depicts your loving and cherished creator-being as a monstrous, childish, impetuous, jealous, and ultimately spiteful being. I cannot fathom how anyone can read the Bible and not come away thinking, "This is who I worship?" Unless, of course, they cherry pick and decide what they want to believe and throw out what they don't, or they agree with everything in there, in which case they're a bigot.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-23 01:55am

McC wrote: See, this is what I don't get about religions. Why ascribe something like this to an external force when it's ultimately yourself from whom you seek and receive the answers? It's a foolish, delusional extra step and I am hard-pressed to understand why, beyond overwhelming popular support, belief in a higher being is not classified as a form of schizophrenia.

I don't understand it either, but I understand that some people simply lack the self-confidence to believe in their own abilities. The omnipresent parental figure, the idea that something out there is watching you and cares is helpfull in dealing with downfalls in life, and maintaining a positive attitude. As for why it isn't labled as schizophrenia... it doesn't take away from the ability to live out your life, and it doesn't cause them specific mental harm. If it did, I'm sure that all religions would be viewed as cults. In all honesty, I actually believe that religion had its function in early society as a means of keeping people's confusion about the world in check, and to give societies set of laws to follow.

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-06-23 01:56am

Provide empirical evidence, then. I appear to be quite alive, healthy, and happy without this step. By those measures, it is unnecessary.

I can provide you ancedotal evidence from my own life. I cannot provide empirical evidence.

I am glad you are alive, healthy and happy. Really, I am.

Going back to the original article, my point is that I am sure that Graham will be helped through his illness because he has demonstrated a lifetime of prayer, and I can relate to that. Does that mean he's not scared? Most likely not. Does that mean that prayer will 'cure' his illness? I for one am not in a position to prove that.

I guess I am just saddened by the notion that so many Christian 'leaders' have for so long claimed so loudly and so adamantly about 'knowing' things about prayer, God and the universe, that they just turn out to be absurd and ridiculous - and as a result it diminishes the light of the church and what it could be achieving.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-06-23 01:57am

Zero132132 wrote:I don't understand it either, but I understand that some people simply lack the self-confidence to believe in their own abilities. The omnipresent parental figure, the idea that something out there is watching you and cares is helpfull in dealing with downfalls in life, and maintaining a positive attitude.

Sure, and having this crutch is fine -- as long as it's recognized as a crutch. Show me the planet we live on that defines 'God' as a crutch rather than as an actual important figure in life

As for why it isn't labled as schizophrenia... it doesn't take away from the ability to live out your life, and it doesn't cause them specific mental harm. If it did, I'm sure that all religions would be viewed as cults.[/qoute]

Creationism. End of story.

In all honesty, I actually believe that religion had its function in early society as a means of keeping people's confusion about the world in check, and to give societies set of laws to follow.

Yep, I would agree with this. But its function has long since passed and needs to disappear. Spiritualism is fine, but not at the expense of rationalism.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-06-23 02:06am

chaoschristian wrote:I can provide you ancedotal evidence from my own life. I cannot provide empirical evidence.

Game, set, match. Concession accepted.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-23 02:06am

McC wrote: Sure, and having this crutch is fine -- as long as it's recognized as a crutch. Show me the planet we live on that defines 'God' as a crutch rather than as an actual important figure in life

Why is it important to recognize it as a crutch instead of a realistic figure? Many people can maintain this crutch, and strong belief in it, while still recognizing that they must shift their view on thier notion of God to conform to reality, and what science reveals. I've even talked to one man who said that science was a better way of understanding God then the bible was, as the bible was written by man, and the world itself was created by God. If it causes them no trouble to make their notion of god a center of their lives, then I don't see why they need admit that it's a crutch.

McC wrote: Yep, I would agree with this. But its function has long since passed and needs to disappear. Spiritualism is fine, but not at the expense of rationalism.

I agree completely, but if spiritualism and rationalism can be consolidated, I see no reason why the system should be entirely abandoned.

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-06-23 02:07am

I'm saying that the Bible depicts your loving and cherished creator-being as a monstrous, childish, impetuous, jealous, and ultimately spiteful being. I cannot fathom how anyone can read the Bible and not come away thinking, "This is who I worship?" Unless, of course, they cherry pick and decide what they want to believe and throw out what they don't, or they agree with everything in there, in which case they're a bigot.

I understand where you are coming from.

I am not prepared, nor do I believe this is the right place in this thread, to go into a detailed systemic analysis of the Bible.

I will says this about what I believe about the Bible: I believe it is the inspired and infallible word of God. I do not believe it is inerrant because it was produced by the hand of man. I believe that the entirety of the Bible conveys the story of how God wants to relate to humanity and how humanity has responded to that. In the end I believe the Bible reveals one constant - that God loves humanity - all of it - as part of his creation.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-23 02:10am

chaoschristian wrote: In the end I believe the Bible reveals one constant - that God loves humanity - all of it - as part of his creation.

Except when he commands people to kill witches, right? And when he commands genocide of the neighboring peoples.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-06-23 02:11am

Start another thread. I'm fascinated to see the hoops you jump through to reach that conclusion.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2005-06-23 02:12am

chaoschristian wrote:In the end I believe the Bible reveals one constant - that God loves humanity - all of it - as part of his creation.

Ahh I get it, he loves us that is why he maim, kill torture and tries to exterminate us.

Tough love is the excuse of every abusive parent.

And the skypixie is just tousands of times more fucked up.

chaoschristian · Post by **chaoschristian** » 2005-06-23 02:17am

Concession accepted.

You cannot accept what was never offered.

I said I cannot offer empirical evidence. I also implied, if you follow my posts, that it is not possible to offer empirical evidence.

And that is what frustrates me about what is going on with Christianity in America today. Our 'leaders' have stepped out foolishly with language and hyperboly that would lead one to believe that prayer, faith and what not is empirical when it absolutely is not.

I believe in faith. I believe in science. I know for certain that the two compliment one another. But I think its foolish to create the artificial expectation that faith can be proven scientifically, just as I think it is foolish to judge science based on principles of faith.

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2005-06-23 02:17am

McC wrote:
MariusRoi wrote:And as for If I'm a "Real" Christian I'd like a further definition so that I'll be able to back up my claim.
Depends on your denomination. If you're one of those that think the Bible is the absolute word of God, boy-howdy are you and I gonna have a few fun things to say to each other. If you think it's a bunch of parables written by men with an agenda, but with a few nuggets of wisdom here and there, then that's fine. But I challenge you to get the head of your religious order to agree with that.

Well I'm (Generallly) a Non-denominational Anti-trintiarian who follows what might be called a "Creative" interpretaion of the Bible. Note I'm not looking for a fight, and I don't claim to have any science backing up what I belive, just a faith that I'll be proved right eventually. And on that note I think i'll be signing off for the night.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-06-23 02:29am

chaoschristian wrote:
Concession accepted.
You cannot accept what was never offered.

I said I cannot offer empirical evidence. I also implied, if you follow my posts, that it is not possible to offer empirical evidence..

A bit of advice since you are a newbie here. No empirical evidence = no case. Anecdotal evidence is inadequate because I can make some amazing claims as well.

And that is what frustrates me about what is going on with Christianity in America today. Our 'leaders' have stepped out foolishly with language and hyperboly that would lead one to believe that prayer, faith and what not is empirical when it absolutely is not.

Well of course not, because its not real.

I believe in faith. I believe in science. I know for certain that the two compliment one another. But I think its foolish to create the artificial expectation that faith can be proven scientifically, just as I think it is foolish to judge science based on principles of faith.

Science validity as a way of gaining knowledge, its discoveries and associated applications are independent of whether you believe in it or not. Reality does not require ones belief, only religion does.

When one talks about faith as in God's existence, its unfalsifiable, so the next step is to use logic to eliminate / support it. Guess which one logic supports?

If you are talking about some observable benefits of faith (which Billy Graham clearly is) then it can be studied scientifically and either validated or invalidated. Guess which view science supports?

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-06-23 11:00am

chaoschristian wrote:
Show me a Christian who read the Bible fully, and I'll show you an atheist or a bigot.
And I can show you more who have entered into seminary and have come out the same way.

Life tests faith - every second of every minute of every day.

But tell me, how do you define "fully" here? Cover to cover? Or very carefully using systemic theology? Or what? It almost seems that you saying that anyone who reads the Bible must turn into an atheist or bigot because of what the Bible contains to be read. Help me your point here please.

I am aware that Christians are taught to read the Bible in a very specific, non-critical way. In a way that spins all the objectively evil stuff that your god did in the Old Testament (wiping out entire cities, destroying the planet, cursing people down to the tenth generation for things their forefathers did, directing Abraham to kill his son for him (a test yes, but a piss-poor test,) killing a man's entire family and leaving him destitute to win a bet with Satan, encouraging slavery, stoning, killing children with bears just for making fun of a prophet, and throwing other assorted angry God tantrums,) and that the Israelites did in His name (the assorted and sundry massacres of entire civilizations just because the Israelites believed that their god had given them their land.) As well as ignoring all the contradictions in the Bible (where the god is all-powerful, yet couldn't help the Israelites because the other guys had iron chariots, god is claimed to be loving and do no wrong, yet reading the entire first testament reveals him to be a jealous, tantrum throwing despot, Jesus saying both that he welcomed people to salvation, yet admitting he spoke in parables to confuse people so they'd go to hell, not to mention the repeated belief that Jesus would return in the lifetime of his disciples, etc, etc, etc.) Not to mention all tha scientific absurdities that appear in the Bible that are better suited to ancient mythology, which it is . . . having been frozen in its current state for the better part of a millenium and a half.

It is possible to read the whole thing cover-to-cover, in the way they teach you to do so in church and in Sunday school, and believe that the whole thing is wonderful. However, the Bible is hardly perfect, nor does it come even close to being perfect. The trick is, to read it from a purely objective standpoint, or to treat it like any other form of literature (which I was taught to do) taking all the ugliness with the few good points in the Bible (Ecclesiastes, parts of the New Testament.) Now, I beg to differ with the point that anyone who reads the whole Bible from cover to cover will become an atheist (I'm an atheist because careful examination of centuries of empirical scientific observation have produced theories and postulations that serve to explain the universe without ever invoking a god. And because I read the whole Bible cover-to-cover from a literary standpoint.) Many moderate Christians can believe that the Bible was divinely inspired in places, while rejecting the fallacious notion that the entire thing is the Inerrant Word of God (tm).

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-06-23 11:19am

chaoschristian wrote:
Concession accepted.
You cannot accept what was never offered.

I said I cannot offer empirical evidence. I also implied, if you follow my posts, that it is not possible to offer empirical evidence.

Then you have offered a concession. We're not swayed by anecdotal evidence, because humans are fallible creatures, subjected to things such as the confirmation-bias I mentioned earlier in the thread, as well as self-deception, selective thinking, subjective validation, communal reinforcement, and creating ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away the bits that don't fit. If you are going to debate the Bible, then you'd better be prepared to offer actual evidence for your position, otherwise, you know where the exit is.

I believe in faith. I believe in science. I know for certain that the two compliment one another. But I think its foolish to create the artificial expectation that faith can be proven scientifically, just as I think it is foolish to judge science based on principles of faith.

Science and religion do not complement each other. Believing in the supernatural introduces dangerous thoughts into a naturalistic view of the world, which is to say, that if the supernatural exists, then any empirical observation made of the world is immediately invalid and suspect, since, presumably, the supernatural can violate the laws of physics at will. Magic and science are at opposite ends of the rational spectrum, and belief in the spiritual and supernatural is magical thinking.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-06-23 11:31am

Science and religion do not complement each other. Believing in the supernatural introduces dangerous thoughts into a naturalistic view of the world, which is to say, that if the supernatural exists, then any empirical observation made of the world is immediately invalid and suspect, since, presumably, the supernatural can violate the laws of physics at will. Magic and science are at opposite ends of the rational spectrum, and belief in the spiritual and supernatural is magical thinking.

Clap clap clap clap!! Very very well said GMT.

IF there is ANYTHING "magical" out there whether in nature proper or from the postulated existence of God, rest assured it would simply be another form of objective reality we simply haven't measured and tested yet. The possibility of it being outside of and contradictory to the laws of reality as we know it is ridiculously improbable, not to mention insensible.