Did They Not Pray Hard Enough

[Anomalocaris]

Why are you guys still talking to this drich? Has he not show he would neither change the topic, nor change his mind?

[Brakeman]

Since Drich and the others are such good christians and have a personal (one-way) relationship with jesus, why can't they pray for god to give them the knowledge and the ability to answer the Atheist's questions well enough to convert us by their force of clarity and truth?

Because not all atheist seek truth. they seek confirmation of what they come into the conversation is true. (That their is not God) So when an satasifactory answer is given to most, they disregaurd and move on to another popular atheist question, not really looking for answers, but to see if a particular christian can answer a given question.

Have you forgotten that all or very nearly all christians were unbelievers, AKA atheists before being converted? The story claimed by christians must be all true, otherwise none of it is true. Therefore christians should be able to explain what convinced them to believe such a story. Most atheist do want the truth, as I do, but I don't want to accept lies. You claim to talk to god, just as Joe Smith of the mormons claimed, yet I know him to be a lying con man. I suspect your claims of " a personal relationship with god" is equally as untrue, but I want to give you the chance to show it to be true if you can and with god whispering in your ear as you claim, you should easily be able to persuade anyone here. Your failure to do so is a testement to the reality of the situation though, isn't it?

Why can't Drich and the others pray to jesus and tell us more about jesus's time on earth than is recorded in the bible?

He never had pizza, He pooped and He dranks lots of wine in His life time.

Are you planning to petition the church to make this new info canon?
Did you record jesus telling you this?

Why can't he tell us what jesus was doing for the lost 20 years of his life, or even tell us the names of the true authors of the gospels and where they lived and wrote?

Because that time belonged to Him and His family.

So jesus wasn't sent here to be a beacon for humanity, god planned for him to have some "down time?" Did god tell you this or did this just come out of your ass?

Why can't Drich and the others pray and tell us where the Arc of the covenant is located?

Because douche bags such as your self would worship it rather than God.

So I take it you are saying religious artifacts and Icons are only revered by douche bags? I agree with you there, but alas I don't worship anything except my wife's ass. (And no that is not a Balaam's donkey joke!)

Why would Jesus not answer Drich's prayers for this info?

Because they are not PRAYERS, When you ask something outside of Christ Model of Prayer. They are petitions. God is not obligated to positivly respond to a petition..

Plus 'Drich' does not care enough about any of the things you mentioned to even petition God for an answer, at this point.

So asking god for more knowledge about god is not godly?
Do you have a clue of how stupid your arguments are sounding right now? When jesus talks to you, does he explain what a twit you're being?

[Bad Writer]

Brakeman, you're asking him good questions, but he's going

[Minimalist]

Why are you guys still talking to this drich? Has he not show he would neither change the topic, nor change his mind?

He's fun to shit on.

[Tonus]

It's because you gave an example of you just asking God without seeking or knocking.

I would note that in our exchange, including this reply to me, you have not provided any explanation of what is involved in "seeking" or "knocking" that is any different from "asking."

It is a Map to a Guide. God tells you to A/S/K for the Holy Spirit. The Indewellment of the Holy Spirit puts you in direct contact with God.

But the lord's prayer, which you use below as a specific way of "asking," does not include a request for holy spirit. And I don't get the "map to a guide" part. Why does god seem to try so hard to remain distant from people? Couldn't he have just provided a guide?

God only ever interacted with Adam and His prophets. Now God the Holy Spirit directly interacts with everyone!! what are you talking about?

God interacted with the nation of Israel, he interacted with the nation of Egypt, he interacted with every nation that saw his hand take direct action in favor or against them. Now he interacts "directly" through a third party? Do you understand what "directly" means?

That is why you have been told to A/S/K. When you do God will directly interact with you.

He'll interact directly, but in a non-direct manner. That's... not direct.

No, the Holy Spirit, The aspect of God who inspired the bible will write it's precepts on your heart. Where the bible comes in it to help us discern if the message on our hearts is from God or from someone else.

So we verify the veracity of the message in our hearts by using a book that is notoriously open to interpretation?

That's a curious statement. Do you consider yourself free from sin and the law?

Yes as does the rest of Christianity.

In what way? Do you not sin?

You Ask in Modeled/The Lord's Prayer

The lord's prayer doesn't ask for guidance or holy spirit. The lord's prayer sounds like something you use once you have faith and belief in god and accept his sovereignty.

You Seek Understanding in the bible, By asking questions in places like this, in church, and one on one with those who are willing to study, and you know by repeating the process over and over again. (It's a life time process, I am still A/S/K)

This dismisses the experiences of those of us who worshiped god devoutly for many years before realizing that he wasn't there. As I said before in this topic, if you believe that A/S/K has to work if it's 'done right' then the only explanation for those who did not find god is that they must not have done it right.

But as this conversation shows, there really isn't much to the process. So either the process is unnecessarily difficult and designed to turn people away from god, or it's a construct of men who found it a way to separate the wheat from the chaff in a manner that was convenient to their personal or socio-political goals.

[ThomM]

Prayer is not a formal wishing ceremony. It's not a way for Christians to change their lots in life, and it is certainly not a way to change the mind of God. Prayer is a tool used to change the mind of the one who is praying to seek and accept God's will and to make it their own.

Actually Prayer is a complete waste of TIME

THERE has never been a study using a statistically significant double blinded sample - that has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that has established that prayer has any effect beyond that of chance - REGARDLESS of who or what is prayed to.

To claim that prayer in xtianity works - you would expect the results to be significantly different from those of studies of other gods and religions - but NONE have been so.

The claim that there is a will of god is also something claimed by humans that has never established to be true - since there has never been established that any PARTICULAR supernatural god (Not humans) has any proof of existence in any way.

All of this "will of god" nonsense is still another way that HUMANS create things that force their feelings on others. And as the populations become more and more educated - less and less people believe. THERE is already a worldwide shortage of cons (Called preaches or priests) - to sell the nonsense. And the religions have been forced to combine and/or close congregations due to lack of participants and or money.

And most religions are only gaining ground in the third world - where education is limited and belief in superstitions is still well rooted into Lightning and Thunder - which we now know is not related to divine nonsense.

[Bad Writer]

And most religions are only gaining ground in the third world - where education is limited and belief in superstitions is still well rooted into Lightning and Thunder - which we now know is not related to divine nonsense.

The more science expands, the fewer gaps there are for god to fill. The moment we say "Well, hell if I know how that happened, so, therefore, Goddiddit," we stunt our growth and learning. A god of the gaps is a philosophy of ignorance, and men of learning find no solace in this way of thinking. To invoke intelligent design, to label something as miraculous, or to say that there's some invisible force listening to your every wish -- this is doing a disservice to yourself and to others.

Seek after truth, but know that you will not find any hidden in superstitions.

[ronedee]

It's interesting how the ad homs flow freely when something purportedly "evident" to any theist isn't immediately sucked up gratefully as though it's the finest wine. Instead I'm offering my opinion that what you're trying to sell me is actually vinegar, based on observation of its sour effects on the humanity of others.

Well...that's an honest opinion. But why are we tallking about Religion than?

Aside from the obvious projection re: knowledge you don't have, where do you come off judging people like this? Many of the atheists in our happy little band are former theists of one flavour or another, though yours truly never has swallowed the bait up to now and will be well and truly buggered before I ever will in the future.

Judging? We "try" to converse about "why" we are divided in our thinking. I guess there is no point...unless I have God in a box for you to examine.

Actually, I've been standing still the whole time simply waiting to see something to consider. You and your compadres are the ones dodging about and refusing to show anything above the level of insults, platitudes and special pleading.

"insults" flow freely around here...so dispense with the wounded soldier....my violinist is busy.

In your head the divide gets wider and wider. If actuality has anything to do with it, it's not my fault. Give me something I can sink my teeth into, or stop pretending the Emperor is a fashion icon.

How do you understand a "concept" or "theory" or anything in the universe? Here's a clue; you investigate. Or, you take the expert advice of someone who has?

Analogy fail. In your example, we have a chimp, a cage, an apple and hand injuries. All demonstrably existent. The evidence for your (or any) god and its supposed prayer-answering aspect is... more special pleading, seasoned with condecescension.

Understanding fail..... the analogy is about people who want to converse about something they don't know, but have all the answers.

Shouting doesn't hide the projection. Please show me anything I have written that suggests anger directed towards you, or else retract this allegation in your very next post.

You know I made a general statement. I rarely get angry here. So, I don't believe I deserve it from your compadres....who answer "any" response to you, or otherwise indiscriminately. And I've seen your cudos on their nasty responses. That would mean [some] agreement?

This is a speedbump. The proselytising ends here. Thank you for your co-operation.

Speedbump or not...no less sincere. R

[Cyberman]

It's interesting how the ad homs flow freely when something purportedly "evident" to any theist isn't immediately sucked up gratefully as though it's the finest wine. Instead I'm offering my opinion that what you're trying to sell me is actually vinegar, based on observation of its sour effects on the humanity of others.

Well...that's an honest opinion.

Thanks! Praise from Caesar is praise indeed! You forgot to mention that it's a witty turn of phrase, but I'll overlook that.

But why are we tallking about Religion than?

... because we can?

Aside from the obvious projection re: knowledge you don't have, where do you come off judging people like this? Many of the atheists in our happy little band are former theists of one flavour or another, though yours truly never has swallowed the bait up to now and will be well and truly buggered before I ever will in the future.

Judging? We "try" to converse about "why" we are divided in our thinking. I guess there is no point...unless I have God in a box for you to examine.

Well, that would be a useful place to start. That you apparently can't present God in a box for me to examine is as revealing as your expectation that I will settle for God in a book; not to mention your assumption that the only evidence I will allow is an absurd extreme.

Actually, I've been standing still the whole time simply waiting to see something to consider. You and your compadres are the ones dodging about and refusing to show anything above the level of insults, platitudes and special pleading.

"insults" flow freely around here...so dispense with the wounded soldier....my violinist is busy.

My wounded soldier is laughing at you, so your violinist is redundant.

In your head the divide gets wider and wider. If actuality has anything to do with it, it's not my fault. Give me something I can sink my teeth into, or stop pretending the Emperor is a fashion icon.

How do you understand a "concept" or "theory" or anything in the universe? Here's a clue; you investigate. Or, you take the expert advice of someone who has?

Fine; give me something to investigate. Just don't expect it to survive the process if it's found wanting.

Analogy fail. In your example, we have a chimp, a cage, an apple and hand injuries. All demonstrably existent. The evidence for your (or any) god and its supposed prayer-answering aspect is... more special pleading, seasoned with condecescension.

Understanding fail..... the analogy is about people who want to converse about something they don't know, but have all the answers.

Well, at least you've dispensed with the special pleading. Now we just need to work on your condescension.

Shouting doesn't hide the projection. Please show me anything I have written that suggests anger directed towards you, or else retract this allegation in your very next post.

You know I made a general statement. I rarely get angry here. So, I don't believe I deserve it from your compadres....who answer "any" response to you, or otherwise indiscriminately. And I've seen your cudos on their nasty responses. That would mean [some] agreement?

Or amusement. Or admiration for witty wordplay. Beyond that I give kudos for one reason only: because I can.

This is a speedbump. The proselytising ends here. Thank you for your co-operation.

Speedbump or not...no less sincere. R

Just adhere to it, there's a good chap.

[Bad Writer]

...why are we tallking about Religion than?

Because you and your theist friends won't stop bringing it up. This goes for any topic: someone brings it up, then the discussion ensues. So here we are to discuss it.

Judging? We "try" to converse about "why" we are divided in our thinking. I guess there is no point...unless I have God in a box for you to examine.

If you don't have something that's clearly defined, or, in your words, if you can't put God into a box, then this thing cannot be discussed honestly, because neither side will know what the discussion is about.

Dude #1: I wanna talk about Bigfoot!
Dude #2: Sweet. What do you know about him?
Dude #1: I dunno, it just sounds cool...and he's OUT there, man!
Dude #2: I guess I don't know much about it either...not much to discuss, is there?
Dude #1: Guess not, dude. Later, yo!
Dude #2: Yeah, man! Later!

How do you understand a "concept" or "theory" or anything in the universe? Here's a clue; you investigate. Or, you take the expert advice of someone who has?

That's right! And then you put that person's advice to the test. Something that's demonstrably true should have no issues with repeatable results. We know when an expert is right when his/her words can be demonstrated as true.

Analogy fail. In your example, we have a chimp, a cage, an apple and hand injuries. All demonstrably existent. The evidence for your (or any) god and its supposed prayer-answering aspect is... more special pleading, seasoned with condecescension.

Understanding fail..... the analogy is about people who want to converse about something they don't know, but have all the answers.

I dunno, ronedee. Three different people pointed out the flaw in your analogy. If we failed to understand, it's only because you failed to present something that could be understood the way you wanted it to.