Prayer is useless?

[Fish_Whisperer]

After reading through all of the posts in this thread, I don't know that it's a violation of the TOS. (Then again, I'm not a moderator, so who cares, right?) But it seems that the discussion has been pretty civil, given the controversial nature of the topic. Nice job, SBers!

 

[Lisa0825]

After reading through all of the posts in this thread, I don't know that it's a violation of the TOS. (Then again, I'm not a moderator, so who cares, right?) But it seems that the discussion has been pretty civil, given the controversial nature of the topic. Nice job, SBers!

I agree! I think it has been an interesting discussion!

But then, I'm the type who'd prefer to be under-moderated than over-moderated.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Now that I've attended to business and have a few moments, I thought I'd respond to some of the postings over the past few days. Pardonaymwa while I paraphrase ...

Jesus Christ might be embarrassed by the behavior of some Christians (myself included) however He was quite explicit in His command for His followers to tell the world of His love and saving grace.

Someone stated money is the root of evil. No, love of money.

Another poster stated Christ was anti-capitalism and that's why he cleared the temple. Christ was a carpenter; probably worked for money. That's a poor anti-capitalist. The reason He cleared the temple was because it had been turned into a place of business. The temple is supposed to be a place of worship.

Someone told me to not judge. Biblical verses taken out of context are irrelevant. I am not sitting in judgement. I am only telling you what the Bible says; if you don't like it, take it up with God. He knows I don't like some of it either but He made the rules; not I.

To suggest that God "created" homosexuals to reduce the population is absurd to the nth degree. One might then suggest He "created" murderers. Each of us has the free will to act, or not, upon our base instincts and desires.

Another rejected ... because of the lack of evidence. Strange that many embrace a theory with no evidence. There are no interim life forms in the fossil record, there is no macro evolution being observed, it cannot be tested. In the history of the world there has never been a complex system or machine that simply "happened". Yet we are to believe that the complexity of the most simple biological organism, or photosynthesis, or chemosynthesis, etc. just happened. That is a statistical and logical improbabilty that requires a tremendous leap of faith in accidents.

Addressing one the other SBers who commented on circular logic being used to "verify" the Bible, the circular logic supporting evolution is:

a) a bank was robbed
b) the green man has money in his pocket
c) no one saw the green man rob the bank
d) there is no direct evidence linking him to the bank

Conclusion: the green man robbed the bank because a bank was robbed and he has money

One of the "scientists" on another Scoober board actually admitted there is no real evidence for evolution but it must have happened because the alternative (that being creation) is unacceptable. She also went so far as to claim that if I threw my backplate, sta, tank, wing, etc. up in the air enough times that I could not prove it would never hit the ground fully assembled.

For every "proof" of the validity of evolution I can provide a scientific reposte. We can discuss the speed of light, decay, etc. The Bible has never been proven to be wrong despite the most clever attempts of its nay-sayers.

There you have it folks. Dis-believe if you chose but it's a choice based on human pride and arrogance, not evidence; and it's that pride and arrogance that caused Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit and Cain to murder Abel and the relgious leaders to crucify Christ. Fortunately there is light at the end of the tunnel and it is not the front of an oncoming train.

Later. More business to attend to.

 

[Soggy]

The Bible has never been proven to be wrong despite the most clever attempts of its nay-sayers.

Quite simply, the scientific method cannot work on the Bible or religion in general. For the scientific method to be applicable, a hypothesis must be able to be proven wrong. Religion, and likewise the Bible, cannot be proven wrong because the answer to any of the glaring inconsistencies is "God said so/did it/willed it."

What can be shown through scientific evidence is that many, if not all of the men who wrote the Bible never knew the primary source, Jesus Christ and weren't even born when he was alive. How can the Bible be the words of Jesus Christ if he didn't write any of it and the writers never heard him speak?

There are, however, logical contradictions with the notion of an omnipotent being. If God can do anything, can he create an object so large that he cannot move it?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I lean towards the presence of an afterlife. I would say the opposite is not hell, but an absence of an afterlife. Perhaps those who could truly be called evil would actually lack a soul, and then cease to exist after death, as opposed to going to some pit of fire. I do not think that anyone would be punished for having the "wrong religion."

Just playing games with the logic here... Do you think it's reasonable to think that a creator who created the universe for his own purpose rather than ours might be a bit put off by the folks who repeatedly turn their noses up at him and insist on having everything their own way? I'd expect that to be about the quickest way to end up in line to be punished. Kind of like having a child who ignores everything you say, all your rules and insists on doing what they want.

I don't remember where I saw it but recently I read a line that said "Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans." I think you could also add...tell him what you want or how you think he should do things. That's why I think a study that attempts to measure the effectiveness of prayer by counting the number of sick people God will cure at your request is pure folly. In my experience prayers are more often answered when their purpose is to ask for a "to do" list rather than to give one. I have had very little success trying to get God to take instruction from me. Imagine that. When I ask for instruction though it's another matter. When I ask for help following those instructions things really get amazing.

 

[Soggy]

An interesting list:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Quite simply, the scientific method cannot work on the Bible or religion in general. For the scientific method to be applicable, a hypothesis must be able to be proven wrong. Religion, and likewise the Bible, cannot be proven wrong because the answer to any of the glaring inconsistencies is "God said so/did it/willed it."

What can be shown through scientific evidence is that many, if not all of the men who wrote the Bible never knew the primary source, Jesus Christ and weren't even born when he was alive. How can the Bible be the words of Jesus Christ if he didn't write any of it and the writers never heard him speak?

There are, however, logical contradictions with the notion of an omnipotent being. If God can do anything, can he create an object so large that he cannot move it?

Scientific method needs to be testable and repeatable; therefore ironically the so-called scientific theory of evolution falls flat on its face. As I wrote in a previous post, there are no interim life forms in the fossil record, macro evolution is not being observed, etc.

The Bible has been exposed to scientific "analysis" of a sort; typically through archeology but also in comparing Mt St Helens eruption to (creationist) claims of fast layering and fossilization versus evolutionary claims of slow layering and fossilization.

Additionally, the speed of light (and other 'standards') has been assumed to be a constant and used as 'evidence' the Bible is a falacy (did I spell that correctly?). There is scientific evidence that light-speed is not a constant and that rates of decay are not constant. To say nothing of thermo-dynamics. I've actually been told though, by evolutionary "scientists" that creation scientists don't know the first thing about true science.

Is it possible, slightly switching focus, that the reason evolutionists don't want ID presented in schools is because they know their pet theory will be picked apart based on "the evidence"?

The Bible is not a science book. However, it's claims of creation, etc. cannot be scientifically disproven and it does accurately reflect what is observable; fully formed life forms in the fossil record, a flood (a common theme among many peoples of the earth), language (Tower of Babbel), etc. But, and I repeat again, too many so-called scientific theories do fall flat on their face when confonted with the evidence (or lack thereof).

The entire Bible is not claimed to be the words of Christ. As for persons who wrote it not ever having met Christ, is it not amazing that we take many other books for granted yet we never met the author, we've not seen the originals, etc.? Again, the Bible is inspired by God and despite the many contributors and years of writing there are, despite nay-sayer claims, no contradictions in its text.

The evidence supporting the veracity of the Bible is there for examination and has been by many others much more learned than you or I. Many of them came away from their analysis convinced the Bible is what it is claimed to be. Those who did not believe the evidence did so because it's not a comforting thought to know we are accountable.

Later.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

"Christ" is not a name of someone you can meet. Jesus's surname was not "Christ." He was Jesus the Christ. The Christos is a state of spiritual attainment, an annointed title.

 

[Soggy]

Another rejected ... because of the lack of evidence. Strange that many embrace a theory with no evidence. There are no interim life forms in the fossil record, there is no macro evolution being observed, it cannot be tested.

You can say it, but it doesn't make it true.

While there is what we call the missing link in the fossil records of humans, much of the animal kingdom can be traced back a long long ways in evolutionary terms. Human evolution can likewise be traced through the fossil record, through the different species, but there is indeed a missing link between one of the apes and one of the 'humans'. What do you think a neanderthal is? It certainly isn't a homo sapien (it's a homo neanderthalensis), but it sure as heck turned into us.

 

[Soggy]

"Christ" is not a name of someone you can meet. Jesus's surname was not "Christ." He was Jesus the Christ. The Christos is a state of spiritual attainment, an annointed title.

Yes, I think we all know that, just as Robin Hood's last name was not Hood, he was Robin of the Hood. However, to appease the need for semantic accuracy, it is highly questionable whether the authors of the Bible ever met Jesus the Christ.