What is accomplished by prayer?

[Meriweather]

I'd go so far as to say "those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer," generally disdain "religion"

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

 

[JohnPrewett]

I'd go so far as to say "those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer," generally disdain "religion"

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

 

[BreezeWood]

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

you left out, without your one book there is no corroboration your "religion" is anything but a madeup story whether believed or not. were your book to disappear there is simply nothing to believe.

 

[Czernobog]

You have made this argument before. There is a universe of difference between a deist, ad theist. The "creator" of the deist has no known personality, for example, and does not, and has never, communicate with humans. Most deists do not worship God, as they see no evidence that God requires, nor desires, worship. The deistic God does not get in the way of true scientific research.

None of this can be said or the theist.

No, I haven't made this argument before, because this is the first time I have addressed it. I will do so now. In short, both deist and theist believe in God, and in both the deist and theist views, God does not get in the way of true scientific research which is another commonality.

Both of those statements are demonstrably not true. Theists believe in God, a personal, involved Supernatural being that created everything, and takes a persona, intense interest in his creation. Deists believe that it is possible that some amorphous force that we do not, and perhaps cannot, understand started the machine of the Universe, and then toddled off to do other things. To suggest that the difference is without consequence is either ignorant, or is intentionally dishonest. As for religion not getting in the way of "true scientific research". Again, 64% of White Protestants reject evolution. a full 50% of Black Protestants do the same. In case you aren't aware, those two groups, by themselves, make up over half of all Christians in this country. and that's just one example. The data clearly demonstrates that every time science conflicts with religious doctrine, Christians reject science. Sorry. That is God getting in the way of true sc ientific research.

Imagine a person who insists they know science, and that science is only about the human body. For those who know the reality about science, this person would seem to have a very superficial understanding of science. In the same way, those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer, have a very superficial understanding of religion. Both live in a small bubble from which they cannot seem to escape. All we can do is assure such people that outside the bubble is a world where people enthusiastically explore both the physical realm (science) and the spiritual realm (religion). Some prefer the small coziness of a bubble.

Now. You realise that right up until Christians stopped being able to teach scientifically unsound concepts in school (creationism), there was not a single question about the literal inerrancy of the the Bible. it was only after the general public began to learn, and understand science that the interpretive approach to the Bible outside of eschatology began to take root. Now the interpretive approch is used indiscriminately in order to provide cover for the Bible:

 

[Czernobog]

I'd go so far as to say "those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer," generally disdain "religion"

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

You get that that is LITERALLY not possible, right? That claim of "rising from the dead" is a scientific impossibility. That alone relegates the Bible to a collection of fairy tales.

 

[Czernobog]

I'd go so far as to say "those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer," generally disdain "religion"

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

Dude. YOU follow a religion. Allow me to demonstrate. Do you:

1. worship a god that cannot be detected by scientific methods?
2. have a holy book in which your god tells you how to live?
3. have an after-life where you will be judged according to your beliefs, actions and life choices?
4. Believe that by being born into this world you were somehow infected with a disease called "sin", and that only your particular god is able to rescue you from this mortal condition?
5. reject all other gods as being false, with only your god being worthy of worship and adoration?
6. pray to your god?
   
7. believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was your god who created the entire universe?
8. have faith that your particular holy book is the only one in which the written accounts can be trusted completely, and contains the will of your god?
9. attend regular gatherings arranged and led by experts of your particular belief system?
10. think it's possible to know exactly what your god's purpose is for your life, even though you cannot prove he exists?
11. value having a "strong faith" above what can be learned from science and empirical observation and utilising logic and reason? (Before you insist "no" to this one, I will direct your attention back to "Jesus LITERALLY rose from the dead", then apply that to what science, empirical observation, logic, and reason have to say about the probability of that being possible, and then answer this question.)

If you answered yes to the majority of these questions, I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but you follow a religion.

 

[Avatar4321]

"As soon as we learn the true relationship in which we stand toward God (namely, God is our Father, and we are His children), then at once prayer becomes natural and instinctive on our part (Matt. 7:7–11). Many of the so-called difficulties about prayer arise from forgetting this relationship. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings." Bible dictionary - prayer

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"As soon as we learn the true relationship in which we stand toward God (namely, God is our Father, and we are His children), then at once prayer becomes natural and instinctive on our part (Matt. 7:7–11). Many of the so-called difficulties about prayer arise from forgetting this relationship. Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings." Bible dictionary - prayer

This fails as an appeal to faith fallacy.

Faith and prayer are predicated on belief devoid of logic or evidence.

Faith and prayer are products of irrational thought.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

you left out, without your one book there is no corroboration your "religion" is anything but a madeup story whether believed or not. were your book to disappear there is simply nothing to believe.

The impact of Jesus on this world began IMMEDIATELY after His resurrection.
Your idea that the spread of faith in Jesus and it's impact on the world sprang from nothing just shows how incredibly stupid you currently are.

 

[JohnPrewett]

I'd go so far as to say "those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer," generally disdain "religion"

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

You get that that is LITERALLY not possible, right? That claim of "rising from the dead" is a scientific impossibility. That alone relegates the Bible to a collection of fairy tales.

Your ignorance both of God and science is noted. "Science" in no way "proves" anything about what God can or cannot do.

God is simply out of the realm of what "science" can observe and measure.

 

[Czernobog]

I'd go so far as to say "those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer," generally disdain "religion"

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

You get that that is LITERALLY not possible, right? That claim of "rising from the dead" is a scientific impossibility. That alone relegates the Bible to a collection of fairy tales.

Your ignorance both of God and science is noted. "Science" in no way "proves" anything about what God can or cannot do.

God is simply out of the realm of what "science" can observe and measure.

God might be, although I would say that is debatable, but we'll save that for another time. Because human fucking beings aren't! It is a medical impossibility for a dead person to magically not be dead any more. That's just not how biology works. Here's a few more interesting little scientific facts for you. The human body cannot stand on water, let alone walk across it. It has to do with buoyancy, and mass displacement in water. You also cannot magically turn water into wine. It's a chemistry thing. Would you like me to go on...? You cannot claim that the Bible does not contradict science, and in the next breath insist that Jesus did every single thing that the Bible say he did that science says, "No, he didn't, because he can't," Only one of those can be true - either science, or the story. You can't insist both.

 

[JohnPrewett]

I'd go so far as to say "those who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer," generally disdain "religion"

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

You get that that is LITERALLY not possible, right? That claim of "rising from the dead" is a scientific impossibility. That alone relegates the Bible to a collection of fairy tales.

Your ignorance both of God and science is noted. "Science" in no way "proves" anything about what God can or cannot do.

God is simply out of the realm of what "science" can observe and measure.

God might be, although I would say that is debatable, but we'll save that for another time. Because human fucking beings aren't!
It is a medical impossibility for a dead person to magically not be dead any more. .................

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

[Czernobog]

Agreed, though I would add the word "Unbelievers." Unbelievers who only accept a very literal interpretation of the Bible and prayer generally disdain religion.

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

You get that that is LITERALLY not possible, right? That claim of "rising from the dead" is a scientific impossibility. That alone relegates the Bible to a collection of fairy tales.

Your ignorance both of God and science is noted. "Science" in no way "proves" anything about what God can or cannot do.

God is simply out of the realm of what "science" can observe and measure.

God might be, although I would say that is debatable, but we'll save that for another time. Because human fucking beings aren't!
It is a medical impossibility for a dead person to magically not be dead any more. .................

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Which would be a brilliant observation, and use of Shakespeare if we were talking philosophy. We aren't we're talking science. You are exactly the type of Christian that makes me do what I do. Given a choice between science, and a 200 year old collection of fairy tales, you'll pick the fairy tales every. Time.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Sure the bible contains symbolism .... but much of the Bible is either literally true or just untrue.

If one does not believe the bible "literally" tells the truth, then one doesn't believe the bible. Believers in the Bible disdain "religion"

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

People who in fact believe Jesus is LITERALLY alive with power (as per NT) have or will come to disdain "religion"
(as in organized religion ... Roman Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc etc etc)

You get that that is LITERALLY not possible, right? That claim of "rising from the dead" is a scientific impossibility. That alone relegates the Bible to a collection of fairy tales.

Your ignorance both of God and science is noted. "Science" in no way "proves" anything about what God can or cannot do.

God is simply out of the realm of what "science" can observe and measure.

God might be, although I would say that is debatable, but we'll save that for another time. Because human fucking beings aren't!
It is a medical impossibility for a dead person to magically not be dead any more. .................

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Which would be a brilliant observation, and use of Shakespeare if we were talking philosophy. We aren't we're talking science. ............

Nope, you're not talking science.

You are talking about imitation "science" that does not depend on

"observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

 

[BreezeWood]

Most pertinent ....
either one believes Jesus was LITERALLY a man, and was LITERALLY crucified and LITERALLY rose from the dead and is LITERALLY alive now with power .....
OR
one is still a non-believer.

you left out, without your one book there is no corroboration your "religion" is anything but a madeup story whether believed or not. were your book to disappear there is simply nothing to believe.

The impact of Jesus on this world began IMMEDIATELY after His resurrection.
Your idea that the spread of faith in Jesus and it's impact on the world sprang from nothing just shows how incredibly stupid you currently are.

.

The impact of Jesus on this world began IMMEDIATELY after His resurrection.
Your idea that the spread of faith in Jesus and it's impact on the world sprang from nothing just shows how incredibly stupid you currently are.

ad hominem a little ...

your religion "sprang" from a book of forgeries and will cease to exist without it.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your ignorance both of God and science is noted. "Science" in no way "proves" anything about what God can or cannot do.

God is simply out of the realm of what "science" can observe and measure.

physiology only exists as living matter and is the physical proof of life's metaphysical presence. the study of physiology will eventually lead to the origin of life and its creation. the laws will be proven to exist leaving no doubt of the Almighty. in one form or another.

 

[Meriweather]

your religion "sprang" from a book of forgeries and will cease to exist without it.

Religion sprang from people recognizing God and the part He plays in our lives. Stories of these interactions were collected and became the Bible. Therefore, if every Bible was destroyed, every story forgotten, a new book of God and humans interacting would spring into being.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You get that that is LITERALLY not possible, right? That claim of "rising from the dead" is a scientific impossibility. That alone relegates the Bible to a collection of fairy tales.

Your ignorance both of God and science is noted. "Science" in no way "proves" anything about what God can or cannot do.

God is simply out of the realm of what "science" can observe and measure.

God might be, although I would say that is debatable, but we'll save that for another time. Because human fucking beings aren't!
It is a medical impossibility for a dead person to magically not be dead any more. .................

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Which would be a brilliant observation, and use of Shakespeare if we were talking philosophy. We aren't we're talking science. ............

Nope, you're not talking science.

You are talking about imitation "science" that does not depend on

"observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

"You are talking about imitation "science" that does not depend on

"observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.""

Well, that's 100% false...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

your religion "sprang" from a book of forgeries and will cease to exist without it.

Religion sprang from people recognizing God and the part He plays in our lives. Stories of these interactions were collected and became the Bible. Therefore, if every Bible was destroyed, every story forgotten, a new book of God and humans interacting would spring into being.

"Religion sprang from people recognizing God and the part He plays in our lives. "

No it didn't. It sprang from ignorance and sentience. people thought they were special (sentience), and didn't know shit about shit (ignorance)... so, God.

 

[Meriweather]

No it didn't. It sprang from ignorance and sentience. people thought they were special (sentience), and didn't know shit about shit (ignorance)... so, God.

Shrug. Your perspective.