(May 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm)Beccs Wrote: The point still stands. Why, when you can pray in your home, in your church, or quietly before the meeting, do you also feel you have the right to pray and, I will say it again, inflict it on others.

Er, because the Supreme Court says so.

(May 14, 2014 at 9:55 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm)Beccs Wrote: The point still stands. Why, when you can pray in your home, in your church, or quietly before the meeting, do you also feel you have the right to pray and, I will say it again, inflict it on others.

Er, because the Supreme Court says so.

Are you admitting that you consider SCOTUS a higher authority than The Bible when it comes to prayer?

(May 14, 2014 at 10:20 am)Cato Wrote: Are you admitting that you consider SCOTUS a higher authority than The Bible when it comes to prayer?

No, I'm noting that the Supreme Court is a higher authority than Beccs regarding rights in America.

(May 14, 2014 at 11:32 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 10:20 am)Cato Wrote: Are you admitting that you consider SCOTUS a higher authority than The Bible when it comes to prayer?

No, I'm noting that the Supreme Court is a higher authority than Beccs regarding rights in America.

You're missing my point.
- SCOTUS says Christians can pray in public.
- The Bible says not to.
- Christians pray in public.
- Therefore Christians prioritize SCOTUS above Bible

(May 14, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Cato Wrote: You're missing my point.

No, you're missing my point, and trying to apply my statements to a different argument.

Quote:- The Bible says not to.

As has already been discussed, the focus of the matthew passage can be read as regarding public prayer, or hypocritical prayer, or both. Luke 18:9-14 has a parable about two men who went up to the temple to pray. The hypocritical man's prayer was not accepted, but the sincere man's prayer was, even though both of them could have stayed home to pray. The logical conclusion is that the focus of the Matthew passage is therefore on hypocritical prayer and not public prayer.

(May 14, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 14, 2014 at 11:32 am)alpha male Wrote: No, I'm noting that the Supreme Court is a higher authority than Beccs regarding rights in America.

You're missing my point.
- SCOTUS says Christians can pray in public.
- The Bible says not to.
- Christians pray in public.
- Therefore Christians prioritize SCOTUS above Bible

Christians will put anything above the word of god whenever it's convenient. Apologists have lame excuses for the logical and scientific problems in the Bible. Most of these lame excuses have to do with interpreting the text to mean something that it does not mean. So that makes the lame excuses to be above the actual word of god.

In a nutshell -- the Bible means whatever the believer wants it to mean. We notice the the Bible is and always has been simultaneously for, against, and neutral on every single issue. WHich makes it absolutely useless as a reference, much less an absolute truth.

(May 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm)alpha male Wrote: As has already been discussed, the focus of the matthew passage can be read as regarding public prayer, or hypocritical prayer, or both. Luke 18:9-14 has a parable about two men who went up to the temple to pray. The hypocritical man's prayer was not accepted, but the sincere man's prayer was, even though both of them could have stayed home to pray. The logical conclusion is that the focus of the Matthew passage is therefore on hypocritical prayer and not public prayer.

Given that the four gospels get a lot of details wrong between them, and the two stories you mentioned aren't the same story (one is a parable and the other is a set of instructions), I don't think I'd call that "the logical conclusion".

I mean, maybe you're right, but there's no way to assert that given what you said.

(May 14, 2014 at 9:55 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm)Beccs Wrote: The point still stands. Why, when you can pray in your home, in your church, or quietly before the meeting, do you also feel you have the right to pray and, I will say it again, inflict it on others.

Er, because the Supreme Court says so.

But when the supreme court says you can't do something involving religion on the public stage there's howling and gnashing of teeth - in other words much whining and bitching about it.

SO we have this:

Supreme court says prayer okay in meetings, "Yes, and so it should be. All hail the Supreme Court!"

Supreme Court says you can't force prayer into school, "What? Who are these people to remove our rights? We don't recognise their authority. Only god can tell us what we can do!"

(May 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm)alpha male Wrote: No, you're missing my point, and trying to apply my statements to a different argument.

I got your point, it was subsumed when I typed SCOTUS.

Quote:As has already been discussed, the focus of the matthew passage can be read as regarding public prayer, or hypocritical prayer, or both. Luke 18:9-14 has a parable about two men who went up to the temple to pray. The hypocritical man's prayer was not accepted, but the sincere man's prayer was, even though both of them could have stayed home to pray. The logical conclusion is that the focus of the Matthew passage is therefore on hypocritical prayer and not public prayer.

Are you now going to feign ignorance and have me believe you don't know the difference between praying in public and praying at a TEMPLE?!? You must be getting desperate.

(May 14, 2014 at 4:53 pm)Cato Wrote: Are you now going to feign ignorance and have me believe you don't know the difference between praying in public and praying at a TEMPLE?!? You must be getting desperate.

Did you even read the Matthew verse?

Matt 6
5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.

Sorry, but I don't see comparison of a verse about praying in a temple with a verse about praying in a synagogue to be unreasonable. The point is whether one could be seen by men. It quite obviously wasn't about secular vs. religious settings.

---

(May 14, 2014 at 4:13 pm)Beccs Wrote: But when the supreme court says you can't do something involving religion on the public stage there's howling and gnashing of teeth - in other words much whining and bitching about it.

OK, you admit you're just whining and bitching. Fair enough.