Prayer?

[The Grand Nudger]

Your extra-biblical fantasies are amusing Drich, but as I've said, I'm less interested in those than I am in why you feel that the narrative is insufficient in this regard.

[Drich]

Your extra-biblical fantasies are amusing Drich, but as I've said, I'm less interested in those than I am in why you feel that the narrative is insufficient in this regard.

The narritive is complete in the orginal Hebrew. However when the passage undergoes a literal translation, elements of the orginal account are lost.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty sure the "original Hebrew" doesn't read like your fantasies Drich, again, the text seems insufficient. You aren't even interested in exploring why? Not in the least?

[Skepsis]

So, because you do not understand a concept that has not been drilled into you, I am the 'slow' one? I reposted my explaination of evolution/creation, and if you wish to have that conversation let's do it there.

Is there an emoticon for stunned disbelief?

It looks like maybe you catching on.

You must not have understood me. I was saying that Adam and Eve never had a choice to begin with. Is that actually your position?

Oh, oh there you go again! I think you got it.

Well, I guess so.

You've moved the goal posts again. We weren't talking about people never being fooled. We were talking about people being easy to fool when they are looking for a reason to do something foolish.

Actually I haven't... I was responding to your statement that people are only fooled when they allow themselves to be. The tacit assertion there is that people can willfully avoid deceit, thus never being fooled. I guess it's my turn to tell you to go back and read.

How does it screw up? Oh, you must still think we are working on the old catholic model that says we must be perfect all of the time and spend 2/3s of our time confessing for the 1/3 of our life we dare to live.

Are you even looking at what I am responding to? These statements aren't stand-alone quips, you know. I'll pretend you didn't respond like this to give you another chance.
Just go back to your oxymoronic statement about how there was no blame (God's plan) but God "took responsibility" (for sin, or mistakes) despite it being part of the plan.

Look If God wanted us to live perfect lives in His will all of the time whether we wanted to or not there would not have been an oppertunity for sin planted in the middle of the Garden, nor would satan be allowed in to temp anyone. But he was and the tree was planed in the Garden before A&E were created.

Did God ask any of us whether or not we wanted to live forever? Did he ask any of us whether or not we want to be in his "will"?
No.
You comments only pertain to A&E.

The fall and handing this world over to man was all apart of the process of choosing we have. In order for their to be true choice we must have real options and unregulated consenquences. In order to have this we must live in a world/realm where the presents of God of the knoweledge of God's Glory is not imediatly known.

You can't have choice and "God's plan" in the same belief system. Simple as that.

Otherwise 'choice' would be effected by the knoweledge of God's presents. for instance if we did something really stupid and God saved us from our stupid choices all of the time, then we would modify our lives to live with in His safty net. Like wise if the presents of God were known Or even if their were absolute undisputable verfiable proof of God (like you guys seem to want so badly) then no one would have a choice except to choose Christ.

The only meaningful bit of info I got from that was that God is holding out on presents that I should be receiving because giving me these presents would somehow screw up my free will.
In all seriousness, that argument is old and moldy. In the OT his spoke to his heart's content. Were they all convinced? Was that a free will violation?

Contary to popular belief God does not want everyone to goto Heaven. He only wants those who want to be with Him with all of their hearts, Minds, Spirits, and Strength.

So only the sheeple get to go? :'(
Capitol spirit, strength and minds, but no hearts? Oh well, it only pumps blood anyway.

we know this because this is what He told us in the bible, and subsequently this is what it takes to find Him in this life now.

The Bible can't be used as evidence for a God. No matter how verifiable the writings are they can't prove a supernatural being. Spectacular claims warrant spectacular evidence, and a pack of novels just doesn't cut it.

If it weren't this way, then every self perserving God hating person would seek redemption. Even if they did not really Love God.

If God made himself evident, why wouldn't people hate him? He has the power to solve global hunger, to cure cancer, to aid in world peace treaties, to end all illness, poverty, and ill will, and to stop meaningless religious wars all over the world with absolutely no effort at all, but falls back on "Well, remember when I sent vague documents and babbling idiots to tell you of my presence? Yeah, those were legit."
That's a load of shit and you know it.

Moving the Goal post as a Logical fallacy:
Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Quoting a wiki doesn't make my argument go away. I know it is scary, but you are going to have to use your big boy words... you demeaning twat.
lol irony
Still, my analogy holds because it shows the only way you might attempt to verify what is said in a comic book is by comparing it to the real world and trying to see if it is valid. The Bible isn't a stand alone source of information and requires verification. You can't just say "The bible tells me so" and expect to get away with it on an atheist site, where 99% of people will see it for what it is and call you on it. Either show me where the bible was validated on the issue of "god communicates through people now and in the far, far past". Otherwise, your claim is unevidenced and meaningless.

Seriously? reread my second post It explains the difference in prayer and in wish making and God's role in all of it.

I've read it already. Why does it contradict anything you quoted? Does God answer prayers? If yes, then it affects the world. If the world is affected by God, then he to blame for the state of the world, at least in part. It isn't his interaction that makes him guilty, but by the fact that he can interact and doesn't.

So?

Well, that makes him a rather big twat, don't you think?

[Epimethean]

"We weren't talking about people never being fooled. We were talking about people being easy to fool when they are looking for a reason to do something foolish."

LOLs: You mean like when they go looking for a make-believe skydaddy?

[Drich]

Pretty sure the "original Hebrew" doesn't read like your fantasies Drich, again, the text seems insufficient. You aren't even interested in exploring why? Not in the least?

Lead the way Dora.

---

You must not have understood me. I was saying that Adam and Eve never had a choice to begin with. Is that actually your position?

There was only one choice to be made, and yes it was inevitiable that they would choose to do what was forbidden given enough time. That was apart of God's orginal plan, again if it were the options would not be there.

Before you get tangled up in the greek philosphy of free will know the biblical defination is not as complex. In that 'free will' is the presents of mind to be outside of the Expressed will of God. In otherwords It is the Ablity to sin, and nothing else.
A&E had this ablity via the tree of knoweledge.

Are you even looking at what I am responding to? These statements aren't stand-alone quips, you know. I'll pretend you didn't respond like this to give you another chance.
Just go back to your oxymoronic statement about how there was no blame (God's plan) but God "took responsibility" (for sin, or mistakes) despite it being part of the plan.

It's only oxymoronic, if you can not get past the cathloic model of sin/Choice/Free Will.

Did God ask any of us whether or not we wanted to live forever? Did he ask any of us whether or not we want to be in his "will"?
No.

Do you have any recolection before you were born? Then how can you say no with any certainity?

You can't have choice and "God's plan" in the same belief system. Simple as that.

It's God's Plan that you are given choice/The ablity to sin.

The only meaningful bit of info I got from that was that God is holding out on presents that I should be receiving because giving me these presents would somehow screw up my free will.
In all seriousness, that argument is old and moldy. In the OT his spoke to his heart's content. Were they all convinced? Was that a free will violation?

If you insist on using the term free will and holding the bible/God to your understanding of it, then I ask that you use the same bible to define that term.

The Bible can't be used as evidence for a God. No matter how verifiable the writings are they can't prove a supernatural being. Spectacular claims warrant spectacular evidence, and a pack of novels just doesn't cut it.

again, You are moving the goal posts. This is a fools arguement.
Do seriously not see this or simply do not understand the failed logic here?

If God made himself evident, why wouldn't people hate him?

Why would you assume if someone did not love god they would hate Him. Their are billions of people alive that i do not love and yet do not hate.

He has the power to solve global hunger, to cure cancer, to aid in world peace treaties, to end all illness, poverty, and ill will, and to stop meaningless religious wars all over the world with absolutely no effort at all, but falls back on "Well, remember when I sent vague documents and babbling idiots to tell you of my presence? Yeah, those were legit."
That's a load of shit and you know it.

God is not bound to approach humanity the way you think He should approach us. He has repeatedly (throughout History) only worked with those who put the effort in first. He is not of this culture where flash and excess reign. If you want to know God you will be made to humble yourself before Him. not the other way round. Pain, suffering starvation are all ways to properly humble one's self, or the way to properly fill one's heart with self righteous pride. One act serves two purposes. Either to draw near or further seperate, it all depends on the heart in question.

Quoting a wiki doesn't make my argument go away. I know it is scary, but you are going to have to use your big boy words... you demeaning twat.

What makes your arguement go away is the fact that it has been proved to be a fallacy of logic. whether you understand the term or not. In short I would be in greater error to answer this fallacy than if I simply remain silent. If you insist on an answer It is your job to then rephrase your question to not include a fallacy. Here is a link to a list if you are not familiar with the concept.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy Or to broaden the terms on which a suitable answer can be found.

Still, my analogy holds because it shows the only way you might attempt to verify what is said in a comic book is by comparing it to the real world and trying to see if it is valid.

Actually it doesn't for the very same reason I pointed out in my first response to you. You can not sole source the bible for information about God, then phrase a question based on that sole source material and then Move the Goal post to exclude the very same bible you used to formulate the question to begin with.

Either rephrase your question to exclude biblical precepts about the God you asked, or broaden the base in which acceptable answers can be found.

The Bible isn't a stand alone source of information and requires verification.

Then please provide a list of material that gives detailed descriptions of the God of the Bible that are not based on the bible.

I've read it already. Why does it contradict anything you quoted? Does God answer prayers?

Prayers are not wishes. Prayers are simple praise and petitions that God's will be done despite the personal wants and wishes of the one offering the prayer! Do you understand now? or do you need me to break it down further??? Just in case let me connect the dots. If one truly prays (and not petitions God) then that person is not asking for anything outside the Will of God!!! Meaning God answers prayers but again a Prayer is not something out side of what God orginally wanted in the first place!

[Skepsis]

There was only one choice to be made, and yes it was inevitiable that they would choose to do what was forbidden given enough time. That was apart of God's orginal plan, again if it were the options would not be there.

Then they didn't have free will.

Before you get tangled up in the greek philosphy of free will know the biblical defination is not as complex. In that 'free will' is the presents of mind to be outside of the Expressed will of God. In otherwords It is the Ablity to sin, and nothing else.
A&E had this ablity via the tree of knoweledge.

For future reference, please refrain from spelling "presence", "presents".
Free will as defined today means the ability to make your own choices. That's simplified a tad, but it'll work. It isn't freedom of the will to be unable to make a choice for yourself. That is obviously deterministic. How can you be so dull?
If they had no choice but to follow through with this plan... If you believe in hell, this makes your God ultimately unjust. You do see what I'm talking about?
He's neither loving nor just in the model you propose.

It's only oxymoronic, if you can not get past the cathloic model of sin/Choice/Free Will.

It's oxymoronic regardless. You can't say there is no blame and that someone took responcibility (for assumed blame) in the same sentence, regardless of whether or not the Catholics thought you could.

Do you have any recolection before you were born? Then how can you say no with any certainity?

Actually, yes I can. Because it doesn't matter whether or not I was asked then, it matters if I am asked now. If was to be offered this choice now as the individual I label "me" I might have a difference of opinion than some ethereal version of myself.

It's God's Plan that you are given choice/The ablity to sin.

Choice isn't "the ability to sin". Choice is the capacity to choose whether or not you will sin. Huge difference. Nobody can choose to not sin, bar Heyseuse. If it's "God's plan" that I have to sin and have no choice in the matter and the very essence of what is "me" was created by him, then I am not at fault for sinning. He made me to sin. I am a sinning robot, if you will.

If you insist on using the term free will and holding the bible/God to your understanding of it, then I ask that you use the same bible to define that term.

Free will entails the ability to choose. That is the meaning of the phrase. If you think you are justified in using it like you are, then go ahead and prove it to me with logic and not verses from your Bible.

again, You are moving the goal posts. This is a fools arguement.
Do seriously not see this or simply do not understand the failed logic here?

Nope. You never responded to my analogy, or any argument I made for this. I guess I assumed you tacitly conceded this point. After all, that is what people do in debates to try to conceal the fact that they have no evidence for their claim. Show me why I am wrong to ask for extra-biblical evidence for claims made in the bible. I am not asking you for more evidence than is reasonably expected. Like I said before, if the questions pertained only to your story then I might be expected to only look to your story for answers. Unfortunately for you, these questions also involve reality and I am thus justified in asking for real evidence.

Why would you assume if someone did not love god they would hate Him. Their are billions of people alive that i do not love and yet do not hate.

This was in response to "every God-hating person would seek redemption".
So I think you just went ahead and corrected yourself. Bravo.
By the way, I never made the claim that everyone would hate God. I just said "why not"? He's a cunt if he is real, so why not hate him? That doesn't imply in the slightest that everyone would hate him.

God is not bound to approach humanity the way you think He should approach us. He has repeatedly (throughout History) only worked with those who put the effort in first.

There is no evidence of a God in the natural world, so I can only assume they were "pleading" which you say is one way to get God to ignore you.

He is not of this culture where flash and excess reign.

Actually, he created this culture. He planned it this way. So yes, he is very much "part of this culture".

If you want to know God you will be made to humble yourself before Him. not the other way round.

Because he could care less about the sufferings occurring in the world. He wants people to kiss his ass before he can save a single child from an apartment fire that killed 67? bullshit. That's disgusting.

Pain, suffering starvation are all ways to properly humble one's self, or the way to properly fill one's heart with self righteous pride. One act serves two purposes. Either to draw near or further seperate, it all depends on the heart in question.

Your meaningless dribble can be saved for Sundays. Pain and suffering are "humbling"? O.K. It shows that we are weak and can't keep everyone from suffering. But God can, and he doesn't.

What makes your arguement go away is the fact that it has been proved to be a fallacy of logic.

It has been labled by you as a logical fallacy. I swear, if this next bit doesn't have a real argument against my analogy you get to be added to my True Christian™ list.

whether you understand the term or not. In short I would be in greater error to answer this fallacy than if I simply remain silent.

If I didn't want to argue against what I consider to be totally stupid rhetoric I wouldn't be talking to you.

If you insist on an answer It is your job to then rephrase your question to not include a fallacy. Here is a link to a list if you are not familiar with the concept.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy Or to broaden the terms on which a suitable answer can be found.

I refuse to look at Wikipedia pages as a rebuttal. Either answer me or forfeit the argument. Clear as crystal.

Actually it doesn't for the very same reason I pointed out in my first response to you. You can not sole source the bible for information about God, then phrase a question based on that sole source material and then Move the Goal post to exclude the very same bible you used to formulate the question to begin with.

I am not questioning the nature of God; I admit I would be shifting the goalposts if I was. I am questioning events of history, don't forget. Just because it is unverified but your bible says it's true doesn't mean the bible is right.

Either rephrase your question to exclude biblical precepts about the God you asked, or broaden the base in which acceptable answers can be found.

What question? I demanded proof for your assertion that God spoke to prophets and throughout the ages. And that he appeared in the past to people.

Then please provide a list of material that gives detailed descriptions of the God of the Bible that are not based on the bible.

Am I asking about the nature of the God of the Bible? No!
I am and have been asking for proof of a historical event, the revealing of a God to prophets and random peeps in the past. That is first and foremost a historical claim, not a biblical one. That is why I maintain I am not moving the goalposts.

Meaning God answers prayers but again a Prayer is not something out side of what God orginally wanted in the first place!

Then traditional prayer is useless? Very much like talking to an imaginary friend, it can only bring comfort. Still, you would have to have a twisted mind to derive comfort from a God who would allow a large portion of the world to starve to death and die of illness.
God doesn't "answer" prayers. If I was standing still and someone asked me to stand still, would I be responding in any meaningful way if my intentions from the start were to remain standing still?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, lol, no Drich, it's your baby, do your own work. You won't be escaping your responsibilities in conversation with me anytime soon. You want to re-write a myth, make it so. I'm just going to assume the Drich mantle throughout and demand biblical citations or dismiss it out of hand. Everytimje you stray from the narrative, everytime you insert your own fantasy, I'm going to remind you that you aren't conveying a biblically based narrative, but a Drich-based narrative. That's fair, don't you think? Then, when we're done, I'm going to remind you that it's bullshit regardless of whether or not you have biblical references in the first place.

[Whateverist]

Pretty sure the "original Hebrew" doesn't read like your fantasies Drich, again, the text seems insufficient. You aren't even interested in exploring why? Not in the least?

Lead the way Dora.

I interrupt this serious discussion for this frivolous tangent:

http://youtu.be/TnpTcrtsN3U

[Drich]

Then they didn't have free will.

did they have the ablity to sin? then they had 'free will' as God defines it.

Free will as defined today means the ability to make your own choices.

No where in the bible are we promised this at any time. this is not free will. This is freedom of choice. Free will as the bible defines it is the ablity to sin. This they had, this we have.

If they had no choice but to follow through with this plan... If you believe in hell, this makes your God ultimately unjust. You do see what I'm talking about?

Nope.

He's neither loving nor just in the model you propose.

God is loving if you seek His love. God is Just if you seek The attonement offered. He will be neither to those who do not seek what He has offered. Both Love and Justice are conditional gifts.

Actually, yes I can. Because it doesn't matter whether or not I was asked then, it matters if I am asked now.

It 'matters' from a state of ignorance (of God) and it did not matter when you knew of God and all He could offer if you remained faithful for 70 years or so?

If was to be offered this choice now as the individual I label "me" I might have a difference of opinion than some ethereal version of myself.

I am suggesting that the 'ethereal' version of yourself had duluded himself into thinking He was god's goto guy, and when you were seperated from God your true colors came out. So now when you go before God in judgement there can be no doubt in your mind who you are and where your heart truly stands.

Choice isn't "the ability to sin".

Free Will is the ablity to sin. The difference being Adam and Eve had the ablity to sin (as evidence by the tree place in the garden before they were) long before they had the capasity.

Choice is the capacity to choose whether or not you will sin.

agree.

Huge difference. Nobody can choose to not sin, bar Heyseuse.

Bar=Son of, Heyseus=Jesus?

If it's "God's plan" that I have to sin and have no choice in the matter and the very essence of what is "me" was created by him, then I am not at fault for sinning. He made me to sin. I am a sinning robot, if you will.

Yes!

No matter what you do you will always be a sinning robot. Paul says slave to sin but in essence it is the same thing.

Now complete the line of logic... Since you were created a sinner and you have no choice but to sin then that means you are doomed to Hell... Unless an attoning sacerfice has been made on your behalf! Now as a robot your programmer must have also programmed you to accept this attonement did He not?

[Free will entails the ability to choose. That is the meaning of the phrase. If you think you are justified in using it like you are, then go ahead and prove it to me with logic and not verses from your Bible.

moving the goal posts again???

Show me why I am wrong to ask for extra-biblical evidence for claims made in the bible.

AGAIN, Because Everything you know of God came from the bible. Even the broken logic that had you ask the orginal question that started this mess. Except! now that you have established God with the bible and formulated a question against his nature, with what you have learned from the bible. you refuse the bible (The Same Source You Used To Identify God, and Frame your Question) No longer a valid source. Do you need me to repost the defination, for that is a perfect example of moving the goal posts fallacy!

Actually, he created this culture. He planned it this way. So yes, he is very much "part of this culture".

Proof?

Because he could care less about the sufferings occurring in the world. He wants people to kiss his ass before he can save a single child from an apartment fire that killed 67? bullshit. That's disgusting.

again pushing those who hate further away, and drawing those who love him closer in.

Your meaningless dribble can be saved for Sundays. Pain and suffering are "humbling"? O.K. It shows that we are weak and can't keep everyone from suffering. But God can, and he doesn't.

Those who have endured suffering along side a loving God know it's value and do not shy from it when it comes back around. those who choose to go through suffering alone are embittered by it.

I refuse to look at Wikipedia pages as a rebuttal. Either answer me or forfeit the argument. Clear as crystal.

What about a similar page from Purdue University: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/
-or-
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logi...lacies.htm
-or-
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/EN...lacies.htm

Look sport, your appeal to logical fallacies with me is over. whether you understand what a fallacy is or not. If you want to chase your tail with your own home spun brand of thought/logic then feel free to do so. just know i am not going to spin around with you and help you catch it. If you will open you mind a little wider you might learn something, but closing it using logical fallacies will ensure that you will only think as you have been indoctrinated.

Am I asking about the nature of the God of the Bible? No!
I am and have been asking for proof of a historical event, the revealing of a God to prophets and random peeps in the past. That is first and foremost a historical claim, not a biblical one. That is why I maintain I am not moving the goalposts.

How do you know of the God of the bible? where did they Learn? Now keep going to you get back to the bible.. Do you see your delima?

Then traditional prayer is useless?

what is traditional prayer? Christ established 'Prayer' from the begining. Anything labled prayer that does not follow His model is not prayer not 'traditional.'

Very much like talking to an imaginary friend, it can only bring comfort. Still, you would have to have a twisted mind to derive comfort from a God who would allow a large portion of the world to starve to death and die of illness.

Death is one's birth into eternity!! Do you lement when a baby is born? The only reason Death is a 'bad thing' is when you know you will not be spending eternity with God.

God doesn't "answer" prayers.

No He does every single one! It's what you think prayer is, isn't a prayer at all. To me is sounds like wish making.

If I was standing still and someone asked me to stand still, would I be responding in any meaningful way if my intentions from the start were to remain standing still?

What makes 'standing still' in a proper prayer, an answered prayer is when 'standing still' becomes a great benfit for you.

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='320519' dateline='1344370493']
No, lol, no Drich, it's your baby, do your own work. You won't be escaping your responsibilities in conversation with me anytime soon. You want to re-write a myth, make it so. I'm just going to assume the Drich mantle throughout and demand biblical citations or dismiss it out of hand. Everytimje you stray from the narrative, everytime you insert your own fantasy, I'm going to remind you that you aren't conveying a biblically based narrative, but a Drich-based narrative. That's fair, don't you think? Then, when we're done, I'm going to remind you that it's bullshit regardless of whether or not you have biblical references in the first place.

what else is their to explore then? i have posted my thoughts and the supporting scripture... So 'remind me.'