PDA

View Full Version : Prayer and evil (sf religious terrorism)



jammo
16-01-2015, 12:48 PM
Yes, what Boko Haran is doing in Nigeria is satanic.

So they are doing it in the name of Satan? I thought they were doing it in the name of their God. Pity they are not atheists.

Adamski
16-01-2015, 12:56 PM
So they are doing it in the name of Satan? I thought they were doing it in the name of their God. Pity they are not atheists.
I think Satan is behind it when people massacre other people whose ideas do not match their own.

As we [some of us] pray for the 17 victims in Paris let's not forget about the 2,000 massacred in Nigeria. This type of terrorism must end. #myheartisheavy #prayfornigeria #prayforworldpeace #theystillhaventbroughtourgirlsback

jammo
16-01-2015, 01:11 PM
I think Satan is behind it when people massacre other people whose ideas do not match their own.
Like in the crusades you mean? Was Satan behind them?




As we [some of us] pray for the 17 victims in Paris ...
It sounds really nice that you are "praying for" the victims but what exactly does that mean? They are dead so your prayers can't help them much. Maybe you are praying that they go to heaven? How does that work? Someone could be really bad in life but if they get killed in tragic circumstances does that mean they get a reprieve and go to heaven? Perhaps it would be more constructive to pray for the victims' families if it makes you feel better. God doesn't answer prayers so it's a bit pointless in my view.

Adamski
16-01-2015, 01:16 PM
My prayers are for the families of dead victims and for the recovery of those who are injured.

jammo
16-01-2015, 01:38 PM
My prayers are for the families of dead victims and for the recovery of those who are injured.

Strange. Before you said that you were "praying for the 17 victims". I think the families of the dead probably number more than 17 so it looks like you have changed your position.

No comment on my crusade analogy?

Adamski
16-01-2015, 01:50 PM
No comment on my crusade analogy? I stand by my comment : "I think Satan is behind it when people massacre other people whose ideas do not match their own." I don't know enough about the hearts of the Crusaders to comment on why they did what they did. Christians do recognise that the Crusades was not the greatest period in Christian history.

Ok - "praying for the 17 victims" was not well expressed. But you now know what I meant. The news coming out of Nigeria is truly terrible - most recently, a whole village "wiped off the map".

jammo
16-01-2015, 03:23 PM
I stand by my comment : "I think Satan is behind it when people massacre other people whose ideas do not match their own." .
Of course you do, because your position is based on faith rather than logical argument.



Ok - "praying for the 17 victims" was not well expressed. But you now know what I meant. The news coming out of Nigeria is truly terrible - most recently, a whole village "wiped off the map".

OK. May I ask why you pray? Because it makes you feel good or do you have some expectation that your prayers will be answered? Can prayers really work e.g. God was planning not to help the injured victims recover but because you prayed he changed his mind and decided to help them recover?

Adamski
16-01-2015, 03:55 PM
I pray expecting God to answer . He has 3 basic answers: Yes, No and Wait. I get more Yeses than Nos or Waits.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2015, 04:14 PM
I pray expecting God to answer . He has 3 basic answers: Yes, No and Wait. I get more Yeses than Nos or Waits.

Assuming that the Yeses all actually happen, that may just indicate that the events you pray for are events that you know are extremely likely to happen anyway.

If prayer is actually effective then you could use these prayer requests to predict the future, by posting on here that you prayed to God for such-and-such event to happen and God said it would or wouldn't happen (there is no use posting the Waits). We could then discuss the probability of the events requested, whether the requests were clear in meaning, and monitor your strike rate.

No-one has ever been able to clearly show that prayer is a successful method of predicting the future in this manner.

jammo
16-01-2015, 04:40 PM
I pray expecting God to answer . He has 3 basic answers: Yes, No and Wait. I get more Yeses than Nos or Waits.

Interesting. So where God says "yes" you have actually convinced him to change his mind or to intervene when he was not intending to. Let's use the injured victims as an example. So, for instance, God is sitting up there in heaven minding his own business (in relation to the victims) and you (and others) pray that they survive and be healed. God hears your prayers and says "what a good idea, I would never have thought of doing that, why don't I heal all the injured victims of this shocking tragedy." Is that how it works? If not please explain it to me. If it is really that simple I might try it myself although I'm not quite sure how I receive God's response. I know he doesn't use email or twitter cos he's an old-fashioned sort of chap .... but it would be cool to have a burning bush in my backyard which God uses to communicate with me.

I'm enjoying this discussion.-

jammo
16-01-2015, 09:30 PM
I pray expecting God to answer . He has 3 basic answers: Yes, No and Wait. I get more Yeses than Nos or Waits.

Another thought. I'm surprised that God has so few options in his response to your prayers - Yes, No and Wait. How can that possibly work? For instance say there are 10 persons injured in France and you pray for God the help them to fully recover. What if God only wants to help those victims who are Christians - some of them could be evil atheists who God is not inclined to help. What does he do? He can only heal all or none or wait under your model of prayer! Surely prayer cannot be that limiting for your deity?

I'm also very troubled by what you said about Satan. Is the plot that all the bad things in the world are caused by Satan and all the good things are caused by God? I thought God was meant to be all powerful so why does he allow Satan to do evil things? Perhaps they both have equal powers or is it that God is not really in full control? As you can see I'm very confused. Please help me to understand how this works.

Adamski
16-01-2015, 09:57 PM
Thee most famous example of God being persuaded to change His mind(at least on the surface) was when Abraham persuaded Him to reduce the number of righteous men required for Sodom to be saved. But the number still could not be found - as God knew would be the case.
Some of these questions require non- trivial answers, Currently I am preparing for NSW Australia Day Weekender but I will get back to you after that tournament.

jammo
16-01-2015, 10:18 PM
Thee most famous example of God being persuaded to change His mind(at least on the surface) was when Abraham persuaded Him to reduce the number of righteous men required for Sodom to be saved. But the number still could not be found - as God knew would be the case.
Some of these questions require non- trivial answers, Currently I am preparing for NSW Australia Day Weekender but I will get back to you after that tournament.

OK. On behalf of the Baron and myself may I wish you good luck in the tournament.

Rincewind
17-01-2015, 12:13 AM
Thee most famous example of God being persuaded to change His mind(at least on the surface) was when Abraham persuaded Him to reduce the number of righteous men required for Sodom to be saved. But the number still could not be found - as God knew would be the case.

That doesn't constitute a change of mind. For starters the numbers were all suggested by Abraham and god just agreed. So 50, 45, 40 etc they were all numbers suggested to God by Abraham (who was running a slippery slope argument).

Secondly the later statements are consistent with the earlier ones, so in keeping a promise to not destroy the cities if 10 righteous men can be found is automatically satisfied by doing the same thing for 50, which means none of the later statements involved a change of mind, just a lowering of the bar.

Thirdly God already new the number was less than 10 and so he already knew what number was righteous and so any number greater than that were equivalent from god's perspective.

Desmond
17-01-2015, 08:07 AM
Some of these questions require non- trivial answers, Currently I am preparing for NSW Australia Day Weekender but I will get back to you after that tournament.Can the answer be something like "5/7"?

antichrist
17-01-2015, 12:10 PM
That doesn't constitute a change of mind. For starters the numbers were all suggested by Abraham and god just agreed. So 50, 45, 40 etc they were all numbers suggested to God by Abraham (who was running a slippery slope argument).

Secondly the later statements are consistent with the earlier ones, so in keeping a promise to not destroy the cities if 10 righteous men can be found is automatically satisfied by doing the same thing for 50, which means none of the later statements involved a change of mind, just a lowering of the bar.

Thirdly God already new the number was less than 10 and so he already knew what number was righteous and so any number greater than that were equivalent from god's perspective.

Fourthly God already knew (not new) that uncle Abe was going to perform a Dutch auction and had programmed him not to get it right. Bit like suicide chess.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2015, 01:16 PM
Like in the crusades you mean? Was Satan behind them?
Of course not. They were justified responses to centuries of Islamofascist aggression that had overrun all the great historic Christian centres and turned them Islamic at the point of a sword. Try Crash Course on the Crusades (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/crash-course-on-the-crusades), or my article What about bad things done by the Church? (http://creation.com/bad-things-by-church)

antichrist
23-01-2015, 09:32 PM
Of course not. They were justified responses to centuries of Islamofascist aggression that had overrun all the great historic Christian centres and turned them Islamic at the point of a sword. Try Crash Course on the Crusades (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/crash-course-on-the-crusades), or my article What about bad things done by the Church? (http://creation.com/bad-things-by-church)

Why don't you be accurate and say great historic Catholic centres? No born agains in those days. Didn't the Catholics do the same in South America and S/E Asia?
Am

Adamski
27-01-2015, 08:08 PM
Can the answer be something like "5/7"?I scored 3.5/7 (including a half point bye) which was good enough for $50 for second equal U 1600.Thanks to jammo and Michael B who wished me good luck. Now back to the soccer...but before long back to this thread.

Desmond
27-01-2015, 08:35 PM
He works in mysterious ways.

Adamski
27-01-2015, 09:12 PM
BTW I don't pray to win chess games. I do pray for things like clarity of thinking.

Patrick Byrom
27-01-2015, 09:12 PM
Of course not. They were justified responses to centuries of Islamofascist aggression that had overrun all the great historic Christian centres and turned them Islamic at the point of a sword. Try Crash Course on the Crusades (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/crash-course-on-the-crusades), or my article What about bad things done by the Church? (http://creation.com/bad-things-by-church)
I'm not sure that second link is very reliable:

This was a travesty of paranoia and mass hysteria in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. However, they killed fewer than 25 people, far short of the “perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions” that the late antitheist Carl Sagan (1934–1996) claimed.
Did Sagan really claim that millions of witches died in the Salem witch trials!? I notice that the article has what is supposedly a direct quote, but no reference.

I can help you with that. The reference is from the "Demon-Haunted World", (http://www.skeptically.org/hhor/id8.html) and refers to the number of witches killed in Europe:

There were 28 public immolations, each with 4 to 6 victims on average, in that small city in a single year. This was a microcosm of what was hap*pening all across Europe. No one knows how many were killed alto*gether—perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. Those responsible for prosecuting, torturing, judging, burning and justifying were selfless. Just ask them.

Rincewind
27-01-2015, 09:16 PM
Sagan was probably thinking all witches across Christendom. However Sagan has been fantastically wrong on historical points before so I would not rely on him. He was an astronomer not an historian after all.

jammo
27-01-2015, 10:17 PM
I scored 3.5/7 (including a half point bye) which was good enough for $50 for second equal U 1600.Thanks to jammo and Michael B who wished me good luck. Now back to the soccer...but before long back to this thread.

I'm glad that my prayers for your success have been answered. Unfortunately my prayers for a Kyrgios victory were less successful which leads me to ponder an interesting dilemma. The Archbishop of Canterbury was of course praying for Murray to win whilst Cardinal Pell was praying for Kyrgios to win. We all know that God answers our prayers (yes, no or wait) and in this case "wait" is not an option. So whose prayer does he answer and who does he disappoint? How does he decide? Maybe he didn't answer either as he was too busy watching the soccer????

Adamski
27-01-2015, 10:24 PM
God is not generally interested in sport results. I think OK to pray to perform well but not the done thing to pray to win.
Don't particularly like Kyrgios - both antics and apparent arrogance. Hope he matures with age.

jammo
28-01-2015, 04:23 AM
God is not generally interested in sport results. I think OK to pray to perform well but not the done thing to pray to win.

Isn't he? I wonder how he told you that. I thought he said only "Yes, no or wait." Perhaps he says that in the bible?

Strange then how (for example) Gary Ablett Snr (AFL) and Michael Chan (tennis) regularly thanked God in their acceptance speeches.

You imply that God is not interested in whether or not you win a chess game. I wonder then why he is interested in whether or not you "perform well"? Not much difference is there? Perhaps he was not interested in who won the battle between David and Goliath so long as David "performed well."

antichrist
28-01-2015, 05:32 AM
Serena Williams is famous for thanking Jehovah after ever tourney win - but note always mentions Jehovah as JW is her favourite brand. Though she is on Adamski's side with God I guess he would not like her evil tactics either.

And isn't rugby played in heaven? And wouldn't god have to approve the Development Application for those goal posts? And we know for sure that it was the hand of God that helped Maradonna score that goal against the Poms in 1986. See God can't help himself and just stay on the sidelines

Desmond
28-01-2015, 06:12 AM
How would one surmise what an omnipresent being has an interest in?

Rincewind
28-01-2015, 06:54 AM
How would one surmise what an omnipresent being has an interest in?

One imagines he would have a dog in every fight.

antichrist
28-01-2015, 11:35 AM
How would one surmise what an omnipresent being has an interest in?


Well the nuns used to bathe with clothes on so God could not see them naked so there is a hint there, but maybe them being Brides of Christ gave God some benefits

jammo
06-02-2015, 12:15 PM
Serena Williams is famous for thanking Jehovah after ever tourney win - but note always mentions Jehovah as JW is her favourite brand. Though she is on Adamski's side with God I guess he would not like her evil tactics either.

And isn't rugby played in heaven? And wouldn't god have to approve the Development Application for those goal posts? And we know for sure that it was the hand of God that helped Maradonna score that goal against the Poms in 1986. See God can't help himself and just stay on the sidelines

Yes. I was in the crowd at the tennis final when Serena thanked Jehovah for her performance so she must think that God has some interest in sport. Wonder why he does not apparently help Sharapova with her performance .... maybe he is put off by all that grunting. There was a collective OMG groaning response from the crowd so it's good to see so many atheists actively following the tennis.

Before closing perhaps I should congratulate Adamski on so far delaying his promised answers to my questions in earlier posts on this thread.

MichaelBaron
06-02-2015, 01:08 PM
I scored 3.5/7 (including a half point bye) which was good enough for $50 for second equal U 1600.Thanks to jammo and Michael B who wished me good luck. Now back to the soccer...but before long back to this thread.

Welcome :) :) :)

ER
12-02-2015, 07:52 PM
God is not generally interested in sport results. I think OK to pray to perform well but not the done thing to pray to win...

Jonathan OK to pray for some divine interference when one has finished 2nd in his rating group of a recent tournament and still hasn't seen or heard anything about his prize money (which btw was three times the amount of your check)? LOL :)

jammo
12-02-2015, 09:39 PM
Jonathan OK to pray for some divine interference when one has finished 2nd in his rating group of a recent tournament and still hasn't seen or heard anything about his prize money (which btw was three times the amount of your check)? LOL :)

Are you perhaps an American Elliot, or do you need to cheque your spelling?

ER
12-02-2015, 10:02 PM
Are you perhaps an American Elliot, or do you need to cheque your spelling?

wrong again jammo, it's with double T old boy! :P

jammo
12-02-2015, 11:35 PM
wrong again jammo, it's with double T old boy! :P

Alas, it appears that the point I was making was too subtle.

ER
13-02-2015, 07:47 AM
Alas, it appears that the point I was making was too subtle.

not really, it was quite boorish. BTW have you realised that you're barking up the wrong tree again? hint: this is a prayer room!

jammo
13-02-2015, 01:12 PM
not really, it was quite boorish. BTW have you realised that you're barking up the wrong tree again? hint: this is a prayer room!

OMG. I'm in the wrong room! Quick, someone take me to the spelling room before I get banned. Maybe I can prey for God to help both of us with our spelling and get around it that way?

(BTW can you please Czech my spelling above as I think I may have made another mistake).

Adamski
13-02-2015, 05:38 PM
Jonathan OK to pray for some divine interference when one has finished 2nd in his rating group of a recent tournament and still hasn't seen or heard anything about his prize money (which btw was three times the amount of your check)? LOL :)I would say yes. Ringing an organiser would also be a good idea! :)

ER
13-02-2015, 06:06 PM
I would say yes. Ringing an organiser would also be a good idea! :)

Thanks for the advice Adamski, I might have to do that. BTW congratulations to Mrs Adams and yourself for another great anniversary. May God always be with you!
I added mine to the (many) other congratulatory postings on FB so I might do it here as well!

antichrist
15-02-2015, 05:41 PM
......... May God always be with you!
..

What category exactly does this fit into - a prayer, a wish, a direction or just a throw-a-way line or even a curse?

jammo
22-02-2015, 07:59 AM
Thee most famous example of God being persuaded to change His mind(at least on the surface) was when Abraham persuaded Him to reduce the number of righteous men required for Sodom to be saved. But the number still could not be found - as God knew would be the case.
Some of these questions require non- trivial answers, Currently I am preparing for NSW Australia Day Weekender but I will get back to you after that tournament.

I am currently praying that Adamski will soon recover from his Australia Day Tournament and answer my questions as promised.

The good news is that God has answered my prayers!

The bad news is that his answer was "wait".

Desmond
22-02-2015, 09:02 AM
What does wait mean anyway? I thought God was a man with a plan, surely he doesn't need time to think about it. Or maybe like cheap reality TV show hosts (I'm looking at you Eddie) he likes to build suspense and let you know after the ad break. Or maybe he doesn't know the answer and needs to phone a friend. Or google it.

antichrist
22-02-2015, 10:46 AM
Good Weekend magazine last week had an article on Catholic priests very busy at performing exorcisms, a letter writer later pointed out how atheists never needed such services, that means that Satan only targets believers, so the moral is become an atheist and live safely happy ever after. Another letter pointed out that the Catholic Church needed the exorcism not the parishioners. With all the paedophilia in the Church I don't doubt that.

Adamski
22-02-2015, 04:22 PM
I am currently praying that Adamski will soon recover from his Australia Day Tournament and answer my questions as promised.

The good news is that God has answered my prayers!

The bad news is that his answer was "wait".Sorry, jammo. I have been very busy at work. Maybe next weekend.

jammo
22-02-2015, 05:22 PM
Sorry, jammo. I have been very busy at work. Maybe next weekend.

That's fine Adamski. So long as I don't have to wait 40 days and 40 nights......

MichaelBaron
23-02-2015, 03:25 PM
Secondly the later statements are consistent with the earlier ones, so in keeping a promise to not destroy the cities if 10 righteous men can be found is automatically satisfied by doing the same thing for 50, which means none of the later statements involved a change of mind, just a lowering of the bar.

Thirdly God already new the number was less than 10 and so he already knew what number was righteous and so any number greater than that were equivalent from god's perspective.

Lol.
I can see a lot of scope for writing an academic paper on the subject of whether God uses ''qualitative or quantitative methods of analysis'' when deciding how to look after us :)

Adamski
02-03-2015, 12:02 PM
Isn't he? I wonder how he told you that. I thought he said only "Yes, no or wait." Perhaps he says that in the bible?

Strange then how (for example) Gary Ablett Snr (AFL) and Michael Chan (tennis) regularly thanked God in their acceptance speeches.

You imply that God is not interested in whether or not you win a chess game. I wonder then why he is interested in whether or not you "perform well"? Not much difference is there? Perhaps he was not interested in who won the battle between David and Goliath so long as David "performed well."

OK. I am pleased that Ablett, Chan etc thank God in their acceptance speeches. I doubt that they prayed to God asking to win. But they may well have prayed asking Him to help them do their best.
There is a big difference between a sports event (including chess) and a one on one fight where one man, David, was standing up for the living God, and the other, Goliath, was defying him. The Bible doesn't say if David prayed aloud for victory, but he certainly "prayed" in his heart and God gave him it anyway.

Adamski
02-03-2015, 12:05 PM
What does wait mean anyway? I thought God was a man with a plan, surely he doesn't need time to think about it. Or maybe like cheap reality TV show hosts (I'm looking at you Eddie) he likes to build suspense and let you know after the ad break. Or maybe he doesn't know the answer and needs to phone a friend. Or google it.

Its rather that God sometimes wants us to wait before giving us the thing that we ask Him for. His timing is perfect. He knows so much more than us about when it is best to answer a prayer in the affirmative.

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2015, 12:38 PM
God is not generally interested in sport results. I think OK to pray to perform well but not the done thing to pray to win.
Adamski is right of course.

jammo
02-03-2015, 05:02 PM
OK. I am pleased that Ablett, Chan etc thank God in their acceptance speeches. I doubt that they prayed to God asking to win. But they may well have prayed asking Him to help them do their best.
There is a big difference between a sports event (including chess) and a one on one fight where one man, David, was standing up for the living God, and the other, Goliath, was defying him. The Bible doesn't say if David prayed aloud for victory, but he certainly "prayed" in his heart and God gave him it anyway.

OK. So I repeat my question. On what basis do you know that God is not interested in sports (results)? I don't recollect sport getting much of a mention in the bible. Please advise.

Second question. If someone prays to God for an outcome and that outcome comes to pass (like David beating Goliath) on what basis do you conclude that "God gave it to him (David) anyway." God could equally well have said "I hear your prayer David, but I don't really care to intervene, let's leave it up to chance." The mere fact that an outcome happened does not prove that God had any hand in that outcome.

Cheers,
Jammo

antichrist
02-03-2015, 07:08 PM
Its rather that God sometimes wants us to wait before giving us the thing that we ask Him for. His timing is perfect. He knows so much more than us about when it is best to answer a prayer in the affirmative.

I know someone whose daughter recently died after doctors and family waited a few days of deciding if worth keeping her life or not. Was God's timing perfect in deciding to take that mother's great love? It has wrecked the famiy

Rincewind
02-03-2015, 09:34 PM
On what basis do you know that God is not interested in sports (results)?

Post #50 answers everything. The only thing missing is plague of locusts to punish doubting Thomases such as you.

jammo
04-03-2015, 07:22 PM
Post #50 answers everything. The only thing missing is plague of locusts to punish doubting Thomases such as you.

Jono may have faith that Adamski is right but alas I am an unbeliever and would like some proof.

I know I have accused Jono of pontificating before. But now I realise that pontificate is not strong enough a term.

Rincewind
04-03-2015, 07:33 PM
Jono may have faith that Adamski is right but alas I am an unbeliever and would like some proof.

Jono doesn't simply believe Adamski is right. Be omniscient, he knows Adamski is right.

jammo
04-03-2015, 08:49 PM
Jono may have faith that Adamski is right but alas I am an unbeliever and would like some proof.

I know I have accused Jono of pontificating before. But now I realise that pontificate is not strong enough a term.

How strange. I didn't write this second line so someone must have added it to my post. I wonder who would do that.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2015, 04:58 AM
It should be obvious why Adamski is right. David's victory over Goliath was in the wider context of defeating the champion of the pagan Philistines who had blasphemed against the true God of David's people Israel. But victory in a chess game or tennis match, is only a benefit to the person, without any wider moral or theological significance. It is OK to strive for victory by any moral means, e.g.:


Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-31.htm)
And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Colossians 3:17 (http://biblehub.com/colossians/3-17.htm)
Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, Colossians 3:23 (http://biblehub.com/colossians/3-23.htm)

Thus Solo's signature is in line with these principles:


I played my best for Him Pa Rumpumpumpum
Do what you do do well

jammo
05-03-2015, 07:51 PM
Doesn't answer the question. You can't infer that God caused the outcome just because his side won the battle (David v Goliath). If that were true then how do you explain all the times his side lost the battle? I seem to recollect that the Jews lost to the Romans and Babylonians for instance. Did they thank God for their losses there?

Perhaps your position is that God causes everything - wins, losses and draws. Seems little point in praying then.

Pity Adamski hasn't been able to answer for himself.

antichrist
05-03-2015, 09:21 PM
Doesn't answer the question. You can't infer that God caused the outcome just because his side won the battle (David v Goliath). If that were true then how do you explain all the times his side lost the battle? I seem to recollect that the Jews lost to the Romans and Babylonians for instance. Did they thank God for their losses there?

Perhaps your position is that God causes everything - wins, losses and draws. Seems little point in praying then.

Pity Adamski hasn't been able to answer for himself.

That Rabbi in Germany (maybe was) 70 years ago provided the answer as he was been herded into the cattle train - THERE IS NO GOD

jammo
07-03-2015, 06:13 PM
That Rabbi in Germany (maybe was) 70 years ago provided the answer as he was been herded into the cattle train - THERE IS NO GOD

And of course he was right. It's interesting to reflect about the Jews being "God's chosen people." Given their history of persecution and genocide on balance I think I'd prefer it if God chose any race other than mine to be "his people."

antichrist
08-03-2015, 10:47 AM
And of course he was right. It's interesting to reflect about the Jews being "God's chosen people." Given their history of persecution and genocide on balance I think I'd prefer it if God chose any race other than mine to be "his people."

Most of the flak was for supposedly killing JC, one of their own mob, well the guy is not even a historical figure, we can't be even sure that he existed. But I guess the myth was created by some Jews to strangle other Jews with and it got a life of it's own.

Tony Dowden
08-03-2015, 09:45 PM
From #3: "... God doesn't answer prayers ..."

Based on some of your other posts in these threads this is rather surprising jammo. Three questions for you:

Are you recognising God's existence?
Are you an authority on prayer?
How do you know God doesn't answer prayer?

jammo
08-03-2015, 10:12 PM
Are you recognising God's existence?
No. I'm humouring those who think he does exist.
Are you an authority on prayer?
No. Are you? That's why I'm asking questions.
How do you know God doesn't answer prayer?
Happy for you to supply some scientifically verifiable data that shows that goes does answer prayers. People like Adamski claim that God does answer their prayers so the onus is on them to prove it. Of course if you want to believe that your prayers have been answered that's fine with me. Maybe it makes you feel better.

Tony Dowden
08-03-2015, 10:37 PM
Thanks Jammo,

I've prayed for over 30 years and God answers my prayers. I'm a trained scientist so I obviously wouldn't bother keeping it up if it didn't work!

If you want empirical evidence then my best advice is to try praying to God yourself. I would be surprised if it takes you more than a month to discover it works. Many millions of people have already been ther done that, so you won't be on your own.

I do understand that some people would find this kind of challenge a little confronting - it doesn't overly help being an intellectual for instance - so you might like to do some background reading first. Perhaps try "Prayer" by Philip Yancy for a contemporary treatment.

antichrist
08-03-2015, 10:40 PM
Thanks Jammo,

I've prayed for over 30 years and God answers my prayers. I'm a trained scientist so I obviously wouldn't bother keeping it up if it didn't work!

If you want empirical evidence then my best advice is to try praying to God yourself. I would be surprised if it takes you more than a month to discover it works. Many millions of people have already been ther done that, so you won't be on your own.

I do understand that some people would find this kind of challenge a little confronting - it doesn't overly help being an intellectual for instance - so you might like to do some background reading first. Perhaps try "Prayer" by Philip Yancy for a contemporary treatment.

Don't you think that the millions of Jews killed in the Holocaust did not resort to prayer?

Tony Dowden
08-03-2015, 10:42 PM
[QUOTE=jammo;392059] ... alas I am an unbeliever and would like some proof ... QUOTE]

I reckon you'll find it if you want to. For starters, see my other post about prayer.

antichrist
08-03-2015, 10:51 PM
Thanks Jammo,

I've prayed for over 30 years and God answers my prayers. I'm a trained scientist so I obviously wouldn't bother keeping it up if it didn't work!

If you want empirical evidence then my best advice is to try praying to God yourself. I would be surprised if it takes you more than a month to discover it works. Many millions of people have already been ther done that, so you won't be on your own.

I do understand that some people would find this kind of challenge a little confronting - it doesn't overly help being an intellectual for instance - so you might like to do some background reading first. Perhaps try "Prayer" by Philip Yancy for a contemporary treatment.

So more dumb buggers go to heaven then intellectuals? Heaven's chess team comes last presumably.

Tony Dowden
08-03-2015, 10:52 PM
Clever question :) The short answer is I don't know. A longer answer is that prayer doesn't always lead to automatic miracles, e.g. no known examples of Jews teleporting out of Auschwitz.

Getting back to the point, just try it.

antichrist
08-03-2015, 10:55 PM
Clever question :) The short answer is I don't know. A longer answer is that prayer doesn't always lead to automatic miracles, e.g. no known examples of Jews teleporting out of Auschwitz.

Getting back to the point, just try it.

I don't mind playing the fool not for real - I cannot insult my intelligence nor common sense nor waste time doing so. I was a raised a devout Catholic and believed everything - but that was only when was too young to know better, now I consider the biggest insult of humanity. I was already an atheist whilst still being an altar boy

Tony Dowden
08-03-2015, 10:56 PM
So more dumb buggers go to heaven then intellectuals? Heaven's chess team comes last presumably.

Lol. Not necessarily AC! I was just making the point that over-thinking something simple is always helpful.

Tony Dowden
08-03-2015, 10:58 PM
I don't mind playing the fool not for real - I cannot insult my intelligence nor common sense nor waste time doing so. I was a raised a devout Catholic and believed everything - but that was only when was too young to know better, now I consider the biggest insult of humanity. I was already an atheist whilst still being an altar boy
What's your point?

[BTW, are you coming up to Brisbane to play in an event some time soon? Rothwell? Seniors?]

antichrist
08-03-2015, 10:59 PM
Lol. Not necessarily AC! I was just making the point that over-thinking something simple is always helpful.

I find that if I do so in chess I may forget the correct simple move or waste time as too early to look so far ahead

antichrist
08-03-2015, 11:19 PM
Tony, don't you think it is a bit of insult to Jews whom faced the Holocaust that God would answer our unimportant prayers and leave their important ones unanswered? Wouldn't they think that God has his priorities wrong? And for his Chosen People as well - not a good look.

jammo
09-03-2015, 07:30 PM
Thanks Jammo,

I've prayed for over 30 years and God answers my prayers.

Well that's very nice. What I don't understand is how he answers your prayers. Is it a little voice in your head perhaps that you have decided is God talking to you? What form do his answers take? Is it the simple "yes, no, wait" offered by Adamski or does your God have a more expansive vocabulary.

Just out of interest, when you pray for "world peace" for example what precisely is his reply? I'm guessing it's not "OK".

It's interesting also what you may regard as a successful prayer. I'm guessing that it's not that you get the outcome you wanted, just that you get a reply. If prayer "works" to the extent that you get the outcome you want then I'm going to take up praying straight away. It's my big chance to pray for Rugby and Soccer to be banned and to have people play tennis instead.

If a successful prayer is merely that you get a reply then what is the point? If you can't change outcomes but only perhaps get some early advice as to what the outcomes may be then that's not particularly useful.

If you want to do a little test of whether or not prayer works how about you pray that the lives of the two Australians about to be executed in Indonesia are spared. Just let me know God's reply when you receive it and we can compare that with the actual outcome.

Desmond
09-03-2015, 08:45 PM
I think it's a bit like the reserve bank when they decide to raise interest rates or whatever.

No one knows beforehand what they're gonna do but after it's all like "oh yes that's a sagefully wise course of action to do <insert whatever the decision was here> for reasons xy and z".

Same with God. Everyone has their opinion before hand that tehy pray for, then whatever is gonna happen happens, then they are like "oh yeah god did/did not [delete not required option] intervene for reason xy and z". Clever chap, that god. Thanks for answering and all that.

Tony Dowden
09-03-2015, 09:35 PM
Well that's very nice. What I don't understand is how he answers your prayers. Is it a little voice in your head perhaps that you have decided is God talking to you? What form do his answers take? Is it the simple "yes, no, wait" offered by Adamski or does your God have a more expansive vocabulary.

Just out of interest, when you pray for "world peace" for example what precisely is his reply? I'm guessing it's not "OK".

It's interesting also what you may regard as a successful prayer. I'm guessing that it's not that you get the outcome you wanted, just that you get a reply. If prayer "works" to the extent that you get the outcome you want then I'm going to take up praying straight away. It's my big chance to pray for Rugby and Soccer to be banned and to have people play tennis instead.

If a successful prayer is merely that you get a reply then what is the point? If you can't change outcomes but only perhaps get some early advice as to what the outcomes may be then that's not particularly useful.

If you want to do a little test of whether or not prayer works how about you pray that the lives of the two Australians about to be executed in Indonesia are spared. Just let me know God's reply when you receive it and we can compare that with the actual outcome.

With respect, this is getting a little trite. I don't intend to engage in playing 'little games' with you, so if you genuinely want to know about prayer I suggest you try it yourself or, if you think you need some fortitude before encountering God, try reading Yancy's book first.

Tony Dowden
09-03-2015, 09:37 PM
I think it's a bit like the reserve bank when they decide to raise interest rates or whatever.

No one knows beforehand what they're gonna do but after it's all like "oh yes that's a sagefully wise course of action to do <insert whatever the decision was here> for reasons xy and z".

Same with God. Everyone has their opinion before hand that tehy pray for, then whatever is gonna happen happens, then they are like "oh yeah god did/did not [delete not required option] intervene for reason xy and z". Clever chap, that god. Thanks for answering and all that.

Funny!

jammo
09-03-2015, 09:39 PM
With respect, this is getting a little trite. I don't intend to engage in playing 'little games' with you, so if you genuinely want to know about prayer I suggest you try it yourself or, if you think you need some fortitude before encountering God, try reading Yancy's book first.

OK. People can draw their own conclusions from your response. If you don't want to debate the topic that's fine. I don't need some fortitude before encountering God by the way as I don't believe he exists. It interests me to try to understand how some people do believe in God and prayer (and even Noah's Ark in Jono's case) but clearly it's something that you are either unable or unwilling to explain to me.

Tony Dowden
09-03-2015, 09:42 PM
Tony, don't you think it is a bit of insult to Jews whom faced the Holocaust that God would answer our unimportant prayers and leave their important ones unanswered? Wouldn't they think that God has his priorities wrong? And for his Chosen People as well - not a good look.

I'm not a theologian but this sounds like 'the problem of evil'. There's plenty of good reading material out there if you want to explore this issue AC.

Tony Dowden
09-03-2015, 09:45 PM
OK. People can draw their own conclusions from your response. If you don't want to debate the topic that's fine.
No worries :)

antichrist
10-03-2015, 02:16 PM
I'm not a theologian but this sounds like 'the problem of evil'. There's plenty of good reading material out there if you want to explore this issue AC.

But Tony, can't you see my point? You claim that God answers your prayers and but as we know God did not answer the Jews' prayers whilst they faced mass murder. Do you and God consider yourself more important than those Jews? As you answer for God answering your prayers maybe you can also answer for his non-answer of the Jews' prayers? Was it because they were not Christian?

jammo
10-03-2015, 07:23 PM
But Tony, can't you see my point? You claim that God answers your prayers and but as we know God did not answer the Jews' prayers whilst they faced mass murder. Do you and God consider yourself important than those Jews? As you answer for God answering your prayers maybe you can also answer for his non-answer of the Jews' prayers? Was it because they were not Christian?

I'm with you AC. If God really does answer prayers then let's get someone to pray for world peace, an end to poverty, no more crime, etc. If God can't control these things what sort of God is he? If he can control them but choses not to then I really think we should change Gods.

Tony Dowden
10-03-2015, 07:59 PM
But Tony, can't you see my point? You claim that God answers your prayers and but as we know God did not answer the Jews' prayers whilst they faced mass murder. Do you and God consider yourself important than those Jews? As you answer for God answering your prayers maybe you can also answer for his non-answer of the Jews' prayers? Was it because they were not Christian?

Not really.

1. I'm convinced God answers prayer but I didn't intend to convey the idea that prayer is like a magic wand and answers always happen instantly and via some kind of spectacular supernatural manifestation. I've sometimes waited a long time for answers. I've sometimes thought prayer was unanswered the later on been not so sure.

2. From large-scale genocide to an individual child with cancer, it's certainly hard to reconcile seemingly unanswered payer.

3. Try it. For real.

Tony Dowden
10-03-2015, 08:03 PM
... I really think we should change gods.
:lol:

antichrist
10-03-2015, 08:57 PM
3. Try it. For real - Tony from abvoe

AC: you are asking me to talk mumbo jumbo to myself - give us a break.

You are talking to a guy who took a Catholic communion host down the Domain in Sydney and stabbed to prove that it would not bleed, like it was accused of in Blood Libel against Jews. But I almost bled when set upon by Chilean Catholic fanatic. Luckily I had that blade with me.

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2015, 09:40 PM
As probably noted here various times before I have several objections to the idea that prayer works (an idea that could in theory be true even without there being any God to make it true).

Firstly a person who says that prayer works when they pray for an event (rather than perhaps for information) is basically saying that they can predict the future with a heightened degree of accuracy, yet no example of someone demonstrating they can do this via a scientifically acceptable method of documenting these predictions publicly in advance has been shown. So-called psychics who also claim to be able to predict events in advance attribute their failure to do so under controlled conditions to "sceptical damping" - thereby making all their claims untestable - I would like to know what the excuse from those who claim a religious basis for what is effectively prophecy is.

Secondly many of the events people are likely to pray for are not intrinsically unlikely. People may pray for the recovery of a sick relative from illness; most sick people recover. People may pray to find jobs when out of work; most people who are out of work find jobs. People may pray for a war to end; most wars end. And so on. Many people pray for something to happen that they have a role in making happen; given that they feel strongly enough about it to pray they probably would have greater chances of success anyway. People who are sick may be inspired to recover by the knowledge that they are being prayed for, irrespective of the prayer having any direct benefit in itself. Also people may pray for an event they are running or a work task to go smoothly; most events that are being run go smoothly.

Of course, now and then an unlikely event that is prayed for will happen, but also now and then an unlikely event that is hoped for but not prayed for will happen, so that proves nothing. If unlikely events that were prayed for routinely happened that would be something but we know from cases like prayers for people to recover from apparently terminal cancer that they usually do not. There is also a danger of definition creep; that when someone prays for something and something similar happens they think that counts as their prayer being answered.

Thirdly if praying worked through divine agency, then Christians should have better outcomes concerning things they pray for than atheists who merely hope for the same thing. But this is not the case to any significant degree. Atheists hope for many of the same things to happen in their lives and those around them as Christians do and they happen to more or less the same extent, as much as can be controlled for by relative differences in life circumstances, social networks, personal skills and other things explicable without reference to divine agency.

MichaelBaron
10-03-2015, 11:57 PM
I'm with you AC. If God really does answer prayers then let's get someone to pray for world peace, an end to poverty, no more crime, etc. If God can't control these things what sort of God is he? If he can control them but choses not to then I really think we should change Gods.

So which God has the ''highest rating'' of all? :).
Anyway, I believe there is only one God

antichrist
11-03-2015, 07:48 AM
So which God has the ''highest rating'' of all? :).
Anyway, I believe there is only one God

Opposite to what logicians say, I think the more powers one attribute to one god the more unlikely it's existence, therefore I am in favour of many gods. If we are not god then I am not interested, the ultimate narcissist, but just edging out Tony whom thinks that God gives him priority over Holocaust victims. Actually that point applies to all those whom pray.

jammo
11-03-2015, 09:42 AM
So which God has the ''highest rating'' of all? :).
Anyway, I believe there is only one God

Which God has the highest rating (with me)? Karpov of course. Those other Gods (Kasparov, Anand etc.) are just pretenders.

You believe there is only one God???? Let me guess... the God that you believe in is the one true God and all those Gods that other people believe in are false!
I'm disappointed in you Michael.

MichaelBaron
11-03-2015, 06:19 PM
Which God has the highest rating (with me)? Karpov of course. Those other Gods (Kasparov, Anand etc.) are just pretenders.

You believe there is only one God???? Let me guess... the God that you believe in is the one true God and all those Gods that other people believe in are false!
I'm disappointed in you Michael.

I do not follow any religion but I believe there must be some ''higher power'' in our Universe so irrespectively of the religion people follow - they are probably praying/referring to this very same higher power

jammo
11-03-2015, 08:48 PM
I do not follow any religion but I believe there must be some ''higher power'' in our Universe so irrespectively of the religion people follow - they are probably praying/referring to this very same higher power

OK, that's not so bad. Does this higher power have any current role in our lives or did he just create the world billions of years ago then hang around to see what evolved?

Tony Dowden
11-03-2015, 10:56 PM
As probably noted here various times before I have several objections to the idea that prayer works ...

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful input Kevin. I'm not going to answer it point-by-point so I've greatly truncated the quote.

If one wants to seriously examine the phenomenon of prayer from a Christian perspective, then my best advice is to examine the biblical claims for 'common or garden variety' prayer which is overwhelmingly relational and (very often) connected to the grace and blessing that flows from God (hoping I haven't lost my readers already). If one does so,[read 'you' if you prefer] one is hardly likely to focus on things on the fringe like predicting the future or Laws of Physics defying miracles - not to say these things don't occasionally happen though.

I first trained as a biologist. Back then no amount of argument would have convinced me about prayer because I had a different paradigm. I fact, I remember thinking it was intellectually insulting to entertain the claim that a spiritual world could somehow 'interfere' with biological systems.

Now I know better because I've experienced repeated intersections of the divine within my own world.

I could try to argue I've experienced improbable coincidence after coincidence and, furthermore, that there are some things in my life I just can't logically explain and that this has been unaccountably going on for the past 32 years and 8 months (two-and-a-half months before I played in the 1982 Lucerne Olympiad). Moreover it started at a very defined time: ever since I decided to accept Jesus Christ as the ruler of my life. But this argument is and was far too hard to sustain for more than a few days. C.S. Lewis wrote a remarkable little book called 'Surprised by Joy' where he described how he encountered God. When I read this in the mid-1980s I realised it was a very good description of my experience - the biggest surprise of my life. I don't need scientific proof about God or prayer because I know what is part of me. It would be like being asked to prove I could see you or talk to you. Although I'm a (rusty) scientist, I'm not going to try to scientifically prove the metaphysical. (Indeed this notion still sounds as silly as it did before I decided to become a Christian!)

I can guess that this all sounds very unsatisfactory to some ears. I understand that. I also understand those who just can't resist baiting 'witless' Christians, especially those that seem to be begging for it. In truth, I've 'been there done that' myself (but 34 or so years ago). I also understand it would be utterly logical for those who discount God to conclude I am deluded. But I respect that, after all what other conclusion can the honest atheist come to?

MichaelBaron
12-03-2015, 01:07 PM
OK, that's not so bad. Does this higher power have any current role in our lives or did he just create the world billions of years ago then hang around to see what evolved?

Good question...could be both...but we will never know :)

jammo
12-03-2015, 01:09 PM
Hi Tony,

You sound like a nice guy who understands that for some your beliefs may seem irrational. If your beliefs make you happy then go for it. At least your beliefs are not as absurd as some of the religious nutters who frequently post here.

I'm not too keen on phrases like "the grace and blessings that flow from God" which to me is just the sort of thing that believers say which sounds nice but means absolutely nothing.

To me mankind has a need to explain what he does not understand and this is invariably ascribed to "God." Of course as our scientific knowledge increases the bit left for God gets smaller and smaller. I think this may be what the Baron means when he believes in some "higher power" that presumably created everything.

I used to go to church when I was young but a chess player is trained to analyse situations and think logically so it soon became obvious to me that belief in a God was illogical.

Cheers,
Jammo

jammo
12-03-2015, 01:15 PM
Good question...could be both...but we will never know :)


I thought that you may have some concrete beliefs but clearly your thoughts are still somewhat flexible. I has presumed that, as a good communist, you would be an atheist like Jono's mate Stalin. I shall have to reclassify you. :)

MichaelBaron
12-03-2015, 04:57 PM
I thought that you may have some concrete beliefs but clearly your thoughts are still somewhat flexible. I has presumed that, as a good communist, you would be an atheist like Jono's mate Stalin. I shall have to reclassify you. :)

You better do - I am certainly not an atheist - just someone who believes in ''God'' rather than in ''religion'' :)

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2015, 07:01 PM
If one wants to seriously examine the phenomenon of prayer from a Christian perspective, then my best advice is to examine the biblical claims for 'common or garden variety' prayer which is overwhelmingly relational and (very often) connected to the grace and blessing that flows from God (hoping I haven't lost my readers already). If one does so,[read 'you' if you prefer] one is hardly likely to focus on things on the fringe like predicting the future or Laws of Physics defying miracles - not to say these things don't occasionally happen though.

I wasn't talking about predicting the future in the grand sense of writing future history - rather, that if an individual prays for something and believes they will receive it as a result, then that's a prediction of their personal future. Even something as vague as "the grace and blessing that flows from God" is presumably meant to be of some use in terms of actual personal outcomes (for the prayer or those they pray for), even if they might be purely psychological. Ultimately the idea that prayers are answered still reduces to either a claim about ability to predict outcomes, a claim about ability to cause outcomes to improve, or both. Otherwise, in what sense does it "work"?

There shouldn't be any need for non-Christians to "try it" to see if it works, which might actually involve them placing themselves in a mental state in which they become unusually likely to conclude that it does. If it works, it should be externally verifiable.


I could try to argue I've experienced improbable coincidence after coincidence and, furthermore, that there are some things in my life I just can't logically explain and that this has been unaccountably going on for the past 32 years and 8 months (two-and-a-half months before I played in the 1982 Lucerne Olympiad).

I experience lots of coincidences too. On the weekend I received an email addressed "Hi Elliott" from someone seeking to be registered as a National Arbiter. This person had read a thread on Chesschat where Elliott Renzies had reposted a message that I wrote, and hence mistakenly concluded I was Elliott. This was, as best I can recall, the first time in 20 years in chess administration that someone had got my name completely wrong in such a way. The coincidence aspect was that when I received this email, Elliott was in the same room as me, which has been the case for about 12 days total in the last five years.

However there are so many improbable coincidences that could happen, that we would notice if they did happen, but don't. On that basis it's to be expected that notable coincidences that appear to be in the .01-.1% chance range would happen reasonably often and that those that appeared to be even less probable would sometimes happen too.

I don't go looking for supernatural explanations for coincidences that happen what seems to be about as often as they should. It would be more suspicious if they happened five times a day or never.

As for unexplained events, not being an expert in everything I do not expect that I will know why everything that happens happens. There's a difference between what I temporarily can't explain, and what I can safely conclude is inexplicable. I've had events of the first kind but never the second.

I don't see much value in baiting people just for having Christian beliefs. AC baits because he's a troll and jammo baits because he's bored, but I don't think Christians have any monopoly on foolish ideas. But I do find it mildly irksome when Christians publicly boast about praying over various disasters (which started this split thread), because there is no available evidence that such praying actually works, and they're making themselves sound more effectively altruistic than others on a bogus pretext.

jammo
12-03-2015, 08:23 PM
You better do - I am certainly not an atheist - just someone who believes in ''God'' rather than in ''religion'' :)

Exciting! A God without a religion to back him up. Oh well, I hope you get to meet him one day. He certainly sounds a lot better than some of the other Gods around here.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2015, 08:50 PM
Michael, do you hold this "higher power" view because you've succumbed to the dreary old "first cause" argument, or for some other reason? What would be so unfathomable or unbearable about there not being such a power?

antichrist
12-03-2015, 09:25 PM
Exciting! A God without a religion to back him up. Oh well, I hope you get to meet him one day. He certainly sounds a lot better than some of the other Gods around here.

Even the Flying Teapot God and Flying Spaghetti God have religions - Michael's version is really left of field

Tony Dowden
12-03-2015, 10:38 PM
Opposite to what logicians say, I think the more powers one attribute to one god the more unlikely it's existence, therefore I am in favour of many gods. If we are not god then I am not interested, the ultimate narcissist, but just edging out Tony whom thinks that God gives him priority over Holocaust victims. Actually that point applies to all those whom pray.
No need to be insulting AC.

MichaelBaron
13-03-2015, 03:08 AM
Michael, do you hold this "higher power" view because you've succumbed to the dreary old "first cause" argument, or for some other reason? What would be so unfathomable or unbearable about there not being such a power?

The ''first cause'' is not the reason. I do not have a strong opinion about creation as I never considered this issue at great length. However, at various points in life, I felt that some events were just 'destined'' to happen. I felt like I was ''guided'' by someone/something. At times, I could also feel that my good deeds were getting rewarded and bad deeds punished. But then again - to me ''karma'' = God

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2015, 05:02 AM
Hi Tony,
You sound like a nice guy who understands that for some your beliefs may seem irrational.
I haven't seen anything irrational about Tony's beliefs.


If your beliefs make you happy then go for it.
“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”― C.S. Lewis


To me mankind has a need to explain what he does not understand and this is invariably ascribed to "God." Of course as our scientific knowledge increases the bit left for God gets smaller and smaller.
Once more, an atheopath with the tired old ‘god of the gaps’ charge (http://creation.com/whose-god-the-theological-response-to-the-god-of-the-gaps), which informed Christians are immune from, while atheopaths resort to random mutation plus natural selection of the gaps. Rather, many of the arguments for God are based on what we do know, e.g. about chemistry and information theory (http://creation.com/who-designed-the-designer-the-old-who-created-god-canard-revisited), and scientific knowledge is uncovering many things that Darwin would not have dreamed of that make his ideas even less plausible.


I used to go to church when I was young but a chess player is trained to analyse situations and think logically so it soon became obvious to me that belief in a God was illogical.
An argument from authority is crass when you are arguing with other chessplayers who clearly disagree with you. Actually, a while back, a hypothetical chess match on ChessChat on Christians vs. atheists (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?10973-Atheists-Vs-Christians-Tourney/page3) would have the Christians with a big edge (although this didn't include you among the atheists), not that it means anything for either side. Also, when it comes to your own ‘god’ Anatoly Karpov, his second Ron Henley referred to Karpov's “Christian faith” in his book Win Like Karpov!: Learn To Play Chess Like Anatoly Karpov (http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/193597906X/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1); who knows what a former Communist now believes, and again it proves nothing.

Rincewind
13-03-2015, 07:30 AM
“I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”― C.S. Lewis

Lewis is selling a lemon on this one. The central message of Christianity is one of comfort. The injustices of the present world are righted in the next. Christianity is also often sold by others as providing comfort in times of hardship. For example

2 Corinthians 1:3-5

"Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort; who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ."

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2015, 11:16 AM
It's laughable to see atheopaths—especially adherents to the batsh!t-crazy christ-myth ideas—lecturing Christians on who is a Christian and what Christianity means. C.S. Lewis was far more knowledgeable. Indeed, there are promises in this life and the life to come. But there also:


Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. Matthew 16:24 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-24.htm)


Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. John 15:20 (http://biblehub.com/john/15-20.htm)

Patrick Byrom
13-03-2015, 12:22 PM
It's laughable to see atheopaths—especially adherents to the batsh!t-crazy christ-myth ideas—lecturing Christians on who is a Christian and what Christianity means. C.S. Lewis was far more knowledgeable. Indeed, there are promises in this life and the life to come. But there also:


Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. Matthew 16:24 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-24.htm)


Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. John 15:20 (http://biblehub.com/john/15-20.htm)
Of course modern Christians in Western countries don't have to worry much about persecution.

And you left out this one (http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm):

…20The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" 21Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.…

Rincewind
13-03-2015, 01:18 PM
It's laughable to see atheopaths—especially adherents to the batsh!t-crazy christ-myth ideas—lecturing Christians on who is a Christian and what Christianity means. C.S. Lewis was far more knowledgeable. Indeed, there are promises in this life and the life to come. But there also:


Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. Matthew 16:24 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-24.htm)


Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. John 15:20 (http://biblehub.com/john/15-20.htm)

Exactly. Pain the the present world and peace in the next...

"In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2015, 03:52 PM
Of course modern Christians in Western countries don't have to worry much about persecution.
Tell that to those who have been fired or sued for opposing sodogamy and the rest of the GayKK agenda. Worldwide, Christians are being persecuted widely in Islamonazi countries and by the various Islamofascist terrorist groups.


And you left out this one (http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm):

…20The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" 21Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.…

Of course, just as I left out the rest of Genesis to Revelation. The above was a command to one man, who had clearly lied about keeping all the commandments. Evidently he had violated the First, since he loved his bucks more than God. Jesus had rich friends like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Zacchaeus, who were never told to give all their wealth away.

Patrick Byrom
14-03-2015, 02:29 AM
Of course, just as I left out the rest of Genesis to Revelation. The above was a command to one man, who had clearly lied about keeping all the commandments. Evidently he had violated the First, since he loved his bucks more than God. Jesus had rich friends like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Zacchaeus, who were never told to give all their wealth away.
23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2015, 02:59 AM
23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Again, it's laughable to see atheists trying to lecture the rest of us on topics about which they know little. The 24th is typical ANE hyperbole (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hyperbole.php) (or hyper-bowl as JuLiar would say), which means we don't need to invent scenarios like the "camel" really meaning a cable rope, or that the "eye of a needle" was a narrow gate. The meaning is explained by one of His parables, Luke 12:16-20, about the foolishness of trusting in riches. But this, as shown by the other examples mentioned, as well as Jesus saying that the very wealthy Abraham is in Paradise, is not a prohibition on wealth as such. Also note that the love of wealth today is hardly confined to rich capitalists. The political Left love wealth even more, since they desire to confiscate it to use for their own political purposes.

Rincewind
14-03-2015, 10:36 AM
The meaning is explained by one of His parables, Luke 12:16-20, about the foolishness of trusting in riches. But this, as shown by the other examples mentioned, as well as Jesus saying that the very wealthy Abraham is in Paradise, is not a prohibition on wealth as such. Also note that the love of wealth today is hardly confined to rich capitalists. The political Left love wealth even more, since they desire to confiscate it to use for their own political purposes.

Abraham is a Jewish example that was co-opted by Christianity in the synthesis of Judaism and Hellenic philosophies. Jesus emerge from humble backgrounds and according to the gospels almost all of his disciples were likewise poor. As as I have already amply demonstrated the central message of Christianity is hardship in this life but paradise in the next and since poor people endure hardship in this life already no additional tribulation is really required on their part. So the apparent injustices of rich and powerful will be addressed in the next life and the poor and powerless find this a very comforting message. This is why Christianity spread through the lower classes before inroads into the elite and post enlightenment Christianity has been on the wane in the more affluent countries but still popular in the third world.

antichrist
14-03-2015, 11:10 AM
No need to be insulting AC.

I don't want to be insulting or at least not unnecessarily if that is how it is viewed. Strictly speaking using the bulldust filter, isn't you considering God answering your prayers a bit rich when he did not answer the Holocaust Jews' prayers? Aren't you very arrogantly putting yourself the centre of God's attention? Such thought seems to fit the narcissism definition I just checked out. If you want to downgrade your plea to just fantasying we can wink wink nudge nudge around it. (I have not mentioned other Nazi victims because I am not aware if they also prayed for salvation or not - I am not downgrading their suffering by omittance).

jammo
14-03-2015, 11:52 AM
Abraham is a Jewish example that was co-opted by Christianity in the synthesis of Judaism and Hellenic philosophies. Jesus emerge from humble backgrounds and according to the gospels almost all of his disciples were likewise poor. As as I have already amply demonstrated the central message of Christianity is hardship in this life but paradise in the next and since poor people endure hardship in this life already no additional tribulation is really required on their part. So the apparent injustices of rich and powerful will be addressed in the next life and the poor and powerless find this a very comforting message. This is why Christianity spread through the lower classes before inroads into the elite and post enlightenment Christianity has been on the wane in the more affluent countries but still popular in the third world.

Sounds like a good strategy to keep the poor masses in check in this life by promising them a fantasy in the next. A good argument for the rich and powerful to promote Christianity.

antichrist
14-03-2015, 12:09 PM
Sounds like a good strategy to keep the poor masses in check in this life by promising them a fantasy in the next. A good argument for the rich and powerful to promote Christianity.

In the same grain, when the opposite was pushed by Liberation Theologians the RCC hierarchy disowned them, including the current Pope, who let them die under torture in his own country.

jammo
14-03-2015, 01:23 PM
In the same grain, when the opposite was pushed by Liberation Theologians the RCC hierarchy disowned them, including the current Pope, who let them die under torture in his own country.

I'm puzzled. What grain are we talking here? Wheat? Oats? Barley?

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2015, 01:46 PM
Sounds like a good strategy to keep the poor masses in check in this life by promising them a fantasy in the next. A good argument for the rich and powerful to promote Christianity.

Yet the first Christians were a lot of the downtrodden, including poor, women, servants. But I wish you atheopaths would make up your minds: Patrick Byrom is ignorantly painting Jesus as anti-rich, while you are claiming that Christianity is for the rich. As G.K. Chesterton put it in Orthodoxy, ch. 6, ‘The Paradoxes of Christianity’, 1908:

As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith, from Huxley to Bradlaugh, a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind--the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices, but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness. In case any reader has not come across the thing I mean, I will give such instances as I remember at random of this self-contradiction in the sceptical attack. I give four or five of them; there are fifty more.

Thus, for instance, I was much moved by the eloquent attack on Christianity as a thing of inhuman gloom; for I thought (and still think) sincere pessimism the unpardonable sin. Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere. But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul's Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction) that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, "the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands," hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world.

It must be understood that I did not conclude hastily that the accusations were false or the accusers fools. I simply deduced that Christianity must be something even weirder and wickeder than they made out. A thing might have these two opposite vices; but it must be a rather queer thing if it did. A man might be too fat in one place and too thin in another; but he would be an odd shape. At this point my thoughts were only of the odd shape of the Christian religion; I did not allege any odd shape in the rationalistic mind.

The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep. I read it and believed it, and if I had read nothing different, I should have gone on believing it. But I read something very different. I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned up-side down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much. Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars. Christianity had deluged the world with blood.

Or, again, certain phrases in the Epistles or the marriage service, were said by the anti-Christians to show contempt for woman's intellect. But I found that the anti-Christians themselves had a contempt for woman's intellect; for it was their great sneer at the Church on the Continent that "only women" went to it. Or again, Christianity was reproached with its naked and hungry habits; with its sackcloth and dried peas. But the next minute Christianity was being reproached with its pomp and its ritualism; its shrines of porphyry and its robes of gold. It was abused for being too plain and for being too coloured. Again Christianity had always been accused of restraining sexuality too much, when Bradlaugh the Malthusian discovered that it restrained it too little.

antichrist
14-03-2015, 03:16 PM
I'm puzzled. What grain are we talking here? Wheat? Oats? Barley?

In the same grain priests sowing their wild oats

13.
a. Basic temperament or nature; disposition.
b. An essential quality or characteristic.

antichrist
14-03-2015, 03:18 PM
The illogic of atheopathy
Quote Originally Posted by jammo View Post
Sounds like a good strategy to keep the poor masses in check in this life by promising them a fantasy in the next. A good argument for the rich and powerful to promote Christianity.
Yet the first Christians were a lot of the downtrodden, including poor, women, servants. But I wish you atheopaths would make up your minds: Patrick Byrom is ignorantly painting Jesus as anti-rich, while you are claiming that Christianity is for the rich. As G.K. Chesterton put it in Orthodoxy, ch. 6, ‘The Paradoxes of Christianity’, 1908:

AC: now Jono if you had written it yourself I may have bothered reading it - can't you do anything original except for rude name calling? That is if they are your work

jammo
14-03-2015, 06:12 PM
In the same grain priests sowing their wild oats

13.
a. Basic temperament or nature; disposition.
b. An essential quality or characteristic.

I've heard of "in the same vein" but not "in the same grain". "Goes against the grain" would suit your definition above.

jammo
14-03-2015, 06:23 PM
What an irrelevant waste of a reply from Jono in #116. Concentrate hard Jono. I did not say "Christianity is for the rich." What I did say was "A good argument for the rich and powerful to promote Christianity." Christianity is clearly for the poor. It gives them (false) hope of a better life in the afterlife and so makes them more likely to accept their current poor conditions. I can see how the rich would have a vested interest in promoting this myth. Anyway, if a good Christian is "rich" isn't he meant to give away his riches so that he can enter the kingdom of heaven, meaning of course that he is no longer a rich man.

Tony Dowden
15-03-2015, 11:49 AM
Lewis is selling a lemon on this one. The central message of Christianity is one of comfort. The injustices of the present world are righted in the next. Christianity is also often sold by others as providing comfort in times of hardship. For example

2 Corinthians 1:3-5

"Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort; who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ."

No, I don't think so. IMO, this confuses comfort (as in a comfortable standard of living) with comforting someone (as in showing compassion and giving them peace).

Tony Dowden
15-03-2015, 11:50 AM
I don't want to be insulting ...
Good to hear.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2015, 11:53 AM
I can see how the rich would have a vested interest in promoting this myth. Anyway, if a good Christian is "rich" isn't he meant to give away his riches so that he can enter the kingdom of heaven, meaning of course that he is no longer a rich man.
As usual, the bored atheopath can't see his own illogicality, just as I (and Chesterton) said. A rich man is supposedly interested in promoting a myth that demands that he gives away his riches? Please try to get your story straight. Anyway, I explained to RW and PB why Jesus commanded only one man to give away his wealth because he basically worshipped his wealth. It wasn't a command for everyone, nor a condemnation of riches as such. Jesus said that the very wealthy Abraham had a prominent position in Paradise.

Rincewind
15-03-2015, 04:14 PM
No, I don't think so. IMO, this confuses comfort (as in a comfortable standard of living) with comforting someone (as in showing compassion and giving them peace).

I think you are the only making this confusion. The discussion stemmed from a CS Lewis where he claimed a bottle of port to be a substitute. While you might need a reasonably standard of living to afford a bottle of port, consuming its contents will not increase your standard of living.

jammo
15-03-2015, 06:58 PM
As usual, the bored atheopath can't see his own illogicality, just as I (and Chesterton) said. A rich man is supposedly interested in promoting a myth that demands that he gives away his riches? Please try to get your story straight. Anyway, I explained to RW and PB why Jesus commanded only one man to give away his wealth because he basically worshipped his wealth. It wasn't a command for everyone, nor a condemnation of riches as such. Jesus said that the very wealthy Abraham had a prominent position in Paradise.

So you "refute" my proposition by asking why a rich man would promote a myth that demands that he give away his riches. You then claim that Christianity does not require rich men to give away their riches! So it seems that you have refuted yourself.

I note in passing that your claim that Jesus commanded only one man to give away his wealth seems to conflict with:
Mark 10:25
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

In any case my point is that it may be in the interests of the rich to promote Christianity amongst the poor, who will not then covet their riches.

antichrist
15-03-2015, 07:31 PM
So you "refute" my proposition by asking why a rich man would promote a myth that demands that he give away his riches. You then claim that Christianity does not require rich men to give away their riches! So it seems that you have refuted yourself.

I note in passing that your claim that Jesus commanded only one man to give away his wealth seems to conflict with:
Mark 10:25
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

In any case my point is that it may be in the interests of the rich to promote Christianity amongst the poor, who will not then covet their riches.

I had a rich uncle and one of the major churches sort of tricked him out of millions in a verbal property deal (thinking he could trust a church) - it definitely made him poorer and maybe got a gold pass into heaven - but he wasn't the size of a camel at all

Desmond
16-03-2015, 06:46 AM
Camels and needles, sounds kinky even by church standards.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
17-03-2015, 05:01 PM
Camels and needles, sounds kinky even by church standards.

Single or double hump ?

jammo
17-03-2015, 06:55 PM
I had a rich uncle and one of the major churches sort of tricked him out of millions in a verbal property deal (thinking he could trust a church) - it definitely made him poorer and maybe got a gold pass into heaven - but he wasn't the size of a camel at all

And of course Bobby Fischer gave a lot of his money to the Church but he didn't go to heaven. He went to Iceland.

Geelong Grizzle
17-03-2015, 07:38 PM
If jammo wants to find out ALL the answers, then why doesn't he read the whole Bible himself? It can take about a year to get through it, but, by the end, he may have changed his mind. If he hasn't, and he's still an atheist, then people should still respect his point of view, but the believers just won't agree with him.

antichrist
17-03-2015, 07:50 PM
If jammo wants to find out ALL the answers, then why doesn't he read the whole Bible himself? It can take about a year to get through it, but, by the end, he may have changed his mind. If he hasn't, and he's still an atheist, then people should still respect his point of view, but the believers just won't agree with him.

I was challenged to read the Bible decades ago, I could not force myself to read so much rubbish, but I did punish myself to read the first two books - it was a real S & M session. You should not insult people''s intelligence to think that they are that gullible.

Tony Dowden
17-03-2015, 09:25 PM
I think you are the only making this confusion. The discussion stemmed from a CS Lewis where he claimed a bottle of port to be a substitute. While you might need a reasonably standard of living to afford a bottle of port, consuming its contents will not increase your standard of living.

Oh, OK then, my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.

I'd be interested to know more. Do you have the C. S. Lewis reference?

Tony Dowden
17-03-2015, 09:36 PM
I was challenged to read the Bible decades ago, I could not force myself to read so much rubbish, but I did punish myself to read the first two books - it was a real S & M session. You should not insult people''s intelligence to think that they are that gullible.

Well, 2 out of 66 books doesn't give you much grounds for wisdom on this ;) And, although starting at the beginning might seem imminently logical, it does sound a tad 'masochistic'! (I always think its incredible that the Jews committed great screeds to heart).

IMO, you'd get far more out of reading from a couple of lists in tandem: say, List 1: Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Galatians, John; and List 2: Psalms & Proverbs.

antichrist
17-03-2015, 09:45 PM
Well, 2 out of 66 books doesn't give you much grounds for wisdom on this ;) And, although starting at the beginning might seem imminently logical, it does sound a tad 'masochistic'! (I always think its incredible that the Jews committed great screeds to heart).

IMO, you'd get far more out of reading from a couple of lists in tandem: say, List 1: Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Galatians, John; and List 2: Psalms & Proverbs.

If the first two books don't hold up then neither does the rest of it so a waste of time. I doubt that many people have actually read the Bible - they are not that much into flagellation.

I have read a fair bit of philosophy and find it intelligent and sensible of course - Bibles should be burnt as far as I am concerned. The small amount of decent stuff in it has been hijacked from other cultures etc but is contaminated by religious freaks. It is better to read in original form from philosophers.

Tony Dowden
17-03-2015, 09:49 PM
And of course Bobby Fischer gave a lot of his money to the Church but he didn't go to heaven. He went to Iceland.

There's being no 'deal' in the Bible about the possibility of paying to get into heaven ... but hinting that it might be advantageous has long been a popular way for unscrupulous figures to appropriate money from the gullible and/or superstitious. The Roman Catholic practice of selling 'indulgences' in the medieval period is perhaps the most notorious and did much to spark the Reformation. All of this obviously stinks to high heaven and is one of the main ways churches have given themselves bad press.

Poor old Bobby gave his money to a Californian cult, not a Christian church.

Iceland is pretty amazing though ;) I'm hoping to go there later this year.

Rincewind
17-03-2015, 10:55 PM
Poor old Bobby gave his money to a Californian cult, not a Christian church.

By any normal measure the Worldwide Church of God is broadly Christian. Perhaps it has become more mainstream evangelical since Herbert W Armstrong died, but even while he was lead minister they were wacky but still broadly Christian.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
18-03-2015, 01:08 AM
The ''first cause'' is not the reason. I do not have a strong opinion about creation as I never considered this issue at great length. However, at various points in life, I felt that some events were just 'destined'' to happen. I felt like I was ''guided'' by someone/something. At times, I could also feel that my good deeds were getting rewarded and bad deeds punished. But then again - to me ''karma'' = God

Michael, do you feel that you are being punished for bad deeds when you lack concentration and blunder ?

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2015, 06:26 AM
By any normal measure the Worldwide Church of God is broadly Christian. Perhaps it has become more mainstream evangelical since Herbert W Armstrong died, but even while he was lead minister they were wacky but still broadly Christian.

Dr Dowden is right: the WCG at the time Fischer joined it was anti-Trinitarian, which puts it outside the ecumenical creeds accepted by Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, and Protestant churches. After HWA died, the organization repented to a large extent. He is also right that we can't buy our way into heaven, a preposterous and pernicious notion (as he said) since God owns everything anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2015, 06:32 AM
I was challenged to read the Bible decades ago, I could not force myself to read so much rubbish, but I did punish myself to read the first two books - it was a real S & M session. You should not insult people''s intelligence to think that they are that gullible.

I rather like the first two books. The great Cecil DeMille epic The Ten Commandments, based mostly on the second (Exodus), is one of the classic films of all time. The first is also good; if you find it too hard, my commentary on the first 11 chapters, The Genesis Account (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-606), should help, and is planned to be available next month.

Rincewind
18-03-2015, 09:39 AM
Dr Dowden is right: the WCG at the time Fischer joined it was anti-Trinitarian, which puts it outside the ecumenical creeds accepted by Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, and Protestant churches. After HWA died, the organization repented to a large extent. He is also right that we can't buy our way into heaven, a preposterous and pernicious notion (as he said) since God owns everything anyway.

Christian means follower of Christ not follower of Trinitarian dogma.

antichrist
18-03-2015, 10:12 AM
Christian means follower of Christ not follower of Trinitarian dogma.

Are you sure - Jesus said something about his ole man, and he was supposedly fertilised by the Holy Spirit - that makes a trinity in anyone's language. But "cult" Biblical groups like JWs and 7 Day Adv all have unique variations.


We won't mention the Filipina lady who had Bobby's body dug up claiming he fathered her child to also get at his money - she may have given him heaven on earth ha ha

Rincewind
18-03-2015, 11:15 AM
Cult is a pejorative in Christian usage. Depending on which parts of theology a church accepts or rejects the are variously termed denomination, sect, cult. The problem with the modern usage of cult is that it is associated with brainwashing and self-destructive behaviours. In the case of the Herbert W Armstrong. I agree that his brand of Christianity was unusual "hence slightly wacky". But if affirming the trinity was the litmus test for Christianity then there would be millions of self-identifying Christians (including one republican primary nomination for President) who would be classed as non-Christian. Jono would also have to stop referring to Isaac Newton as a Christian. For more on the antitrinitarian beliefs of Newton see for example Snobelen 1999 British Journal for the History of Science, 32, 381-419.

jammo
18-03-2015, 07:08 PM
I rather like the first two books. The great Cecil DeMille epic The Ten Commandments, based mostly on the second (Exodus), is one of the classic films of all time. The first is also good; if you find it too hard, my commentary on the first 11 chapters, The Genesis Account (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-606), should help, and is planned to be available next month.

And will you be doing a commentary also on the Harry Potter Books? I believe that there was a movie based on the second book, which is one of the classic films of all time.

Rincewind
18-03-2015, 10:40 PM
And will you be doing a commentary also on the Harry Potter Books? I believe that there was a movie based on the second book, which is one of the classic films of all time.

The reason why Genesis and Exodus make such good films is precisely because they are not histories and could not possibly be mistaken for such. Harry Potter: I'm not so sure.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 12:31 PM
Christian means follower of Christ not follower of Trinitarian dogma.

Same thing. But here again we have the ridiculous sight of an atheopathic Christ-myther trying to tell Christians what the word means.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 12:36 PM
Cult is a pejorative in Christian usage. Depending on which parts of theology a church accepts or rejects the are variously termed denomination, sect, cult. The problem with the modern usage of cult is that it is associated with brainwashing and self-destructive behaviours. In the case of the Herbert W Armstrong. I agree that his brand of Christianity was unusual "hence slightly wacky".
As well as the brainwashing and self-destructive behaviours.


But if affirming the trinity was the litmus test for Christianity then there would be millions of self-identifying Christians (including one republican primary nomination for President) who would be classed as non-Christian.
You mean Romney the Mormon? I agree. But in 2012, Americans were voting for Commander-in-Chief not Pastor-in-Chief.


Jono would also have to stop referring to Isaac Newton as a Christian. For more on the antitrinitarian beliefs of Newton see for example Snobelen 1999 British Journal for the History of Science, 32, 381–419.
Many accuse Newton of denying the Trinity, but he actually denied arguments from dubiously attested biblical texts, such as the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7. Most informed Trinitarians today would agree that the texts are dubious. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton (http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/1510546741/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=YbvxRiytiBjDBsInLz0hA6iCcio%3D), Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008, which addresses Snobelen. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism, e.g.:


“That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.”

The argument against Newton is like someone 300 years from now citing my anonymous article ‘Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use)’ (creation.com) and claiming that I and CMI are anti-creationist.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 12:40 PM
And will you be doing a commentary also on the Harry Potter Books? I believe that there was a movie based on the second book, which is one of the classic films of all time.

I was replying to your fellow atheopath AC who hated reading the books by arguing that some found that they were interesting enough to make a movie or write a commentary about. No one was claiming that this proved anything about their historicity. Try to keep up with the actual argument.

antichrist
19-03-2015, 12:58 PM
Reading those two books is when I found out that Noah was supposed to have lived to 900 years in the shade - I seen red, I seen red, I seen Red!

Rincewind
19-03-2015, 02:30 PM
Same thing. But here again we have the ridiculous sight of an atheopathic Christ-myther trying to tell Christians what the word means.

Not at all what you have is a conflating of terms. Anyone who follows the teaching of Christ can be termed a Christian. After all that is what the word means. Those that accept the trinity dogma are in the majority but denying the term Christian to non-Trinitarians is just politics not semantics.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2015, 11:52 PM
Reading those two books is when I found out that Noah was supposed to have lived to 900 years in the shade - I seen red, I seen red, I seen Red!

Noah's lifespan was 950 years (http://creation.com/living-for-900-years), and I have no idea what shade has to do with anything.

antichrist
20-03-2015, 09:57 PM
Noah's lifespan was 950 years (http://creation.com/living-for-900-years), and I have no idea what shade has to do with anything.

I was enjoying artistic license - from song of same title, when actually I was red with anger at such bulldust

Desmond
21-03-2015, 01:03 PM
Yes no wait, are also the options for calling to your partner when running between the wickets.

jammo
21-03-2015, 05:05 PM
Yes no wait, are also the options for calling to your partner when running between the wickets.

Good pick up Runner. So what are you saying ..... that cricket not rugby is the sport played in heaven? But wait? I thought God wasn't interested in sport, though of course apparently he helps Serena Williams to play "her best." Perhaps that's part of his positive discrimination policy? I wonder if God allows you to play chess in heaven. If so that might be a good time for me to come out of retirement although I suspect I may end up in the other place. Pity.

Desmond
21-03-2015, 06:05 PM
Hey I'm not necessarily sayin god copied off the other kids in the exam, but his answers do have a striking resemblance...

They don't call it original design, after all...

ER
21-03-2015, 11:41 PM
The impressive St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney. From Places of Worship and Prayer Collection. Photo: Elliott Renzies

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/100_0378.jpg (http://s1230.photobucket.com/user/jak_jak1/media/100_0378.jpg.html)

antichrist
22-03-2015, 11:38 PM
That building was what I protested against when state govt gave them $7M to finally complete the spirals -it was one against 5,000 that day but I humoured them well

ER
23-03-2015, 07:32 PM
Wat Arun - The famous Buddhist Temple of Dawn in Bangkok, Thailand. From Places of Worship and Prayer collection. Photo: Elliott Renzies

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/101_0410_zps19910d71.jpg (http://s1230.photobucket.com/user/jak_jak1/media/101_0410_zps19910d71.jpg.html)

Rincewind
23-03-2015, 08:52 PM
I'd be interested to know more. Do you have the C. S. Lewis reference?

It's is Jono's reference which he has trotted out on more than one occasion on this board.

I believe it is originally from an essay that was published in a collection under the title "God in the Dock".

Tony Dowden
23-03-2015, 10:59 PM
... I believe it is originally from an essay that was published in a collection under the title "God in the Dock".
Thanks! :)

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2015, 01:52 AM
I was enjoying artistic license - from song of same title, when actually I was red with anger at such bulldust

Maybe you need an anger-management course.

Desmond
02-04-2015, 08:43 PM
Well, 2 out of 66 books doesn't give you much grounds for wisdom on this ;) And, although starting at the beginning might seem imminently logical, it does sound a tad 'masochistic'! (I always think its incredible that the Jews committed great screeds to heart).

IMO, you'd get far more out of reading from a couple of lists in tandem: say, List 1: Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Galatians, John; and List 2: Psalms & Proverbs.

Of course you can also listen to someone else reading it if that easier. Eg:

zGVjG8-wD-I