What Is The Point Of Prayer?

[Cyberman]

What makes your god positive?

HIV?

[Bad Writer]

This guy is the same old song and dance; he's not gotten nasty yet though, so there's some hope. I do wonder what he'll become once the fox gets cornered.

[Esquilax]

Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ is a person. He is also God incarnate so I do not understand what you mean by the barrier is too high.

You're kind of begging the question, there. The intimation I was making was that god would need to be real to communicate, and since... well, I'm an atheist, obviously I don't believe that. Injecting Jesus into the conversation is effectively the same as talking about Spiderman, unless you can demonstrate the existence of Jesus.

Until then... my point stands.

[Sword of Christ]

And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Luke 17-6

[/quote]

I doubt if you tried that it would work regardless of how hard you prayed. But Jesus spoke in parables and metaphor to communicate certain truths. A lot of the time you have to figure out what it is he was trying to say, you can get a lot of deep meaning there.

[discipulus]

Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ is a person. He is also God incarnate so I do not understand what you mean by the barrier is too high.

You're kind of begging the question, there. The intimation I was making was that god would need to be real to communicate, and since... well, I'm an atheist, obviously I don't believe that. Injecting Jesus into the conversation is effectively the same as talking about Spiderman, unless you can demonstrate the existence of Jesus.

Until then... my point stands.

What do you mean demonstrate the existence of Jesus?

---

I know I am communing with God when I pray because through faith and obedience, I have over a period of time cultivated a relationship with Jesus Christ and I know His voice. Kind of like how you know your brothers voice or your fathers voice because over time you have heard it and know what it is like and the kinds of things they say.

In the same way, when I pray and when God speaks to me it is not with an audible voice but rather an impression or a sense that only the spiritual regenerated man possesses. It is by grace through faith and this not of myself but rather the gift from God.

Replace "God" with invisible pink unicorn, and see for yourself how crazy you are.

Why would I do that?

[Sword of Christ]

But it's still shit, whatever garnish is put on it. Good; I'm glad we're on the same page up to now.

It does actually say you should avoid astrology, necromancy (what we would call Mediums or clairvoyants) and all that kind of thing in the Old Testament if you're interested. It probably means to avoid it not because it's evil in itself but because it's a waste of time. In any case I think something like 5% of the population really take newspaper horoscopes seriously.

Here's where the point goes missing. My comparisons were in reply to your observation that people would have stopped doing something proven to be a lie. Clearly, this doesn't happen in the examples I mentioned. The only prayer (nyuk nyuk) for prayer at this point is special pleading.

I very much doubt prayer would have survived for long past the axial age when the modern view of the universe began to be developed. It continued because the people who practice the technique experience something. If you want to put it down to something psychological or physiological you can but that's only you're opinion. You have nothing particularly to support your opinion beyond that.

Brain scans of people engaged in thinking show activity in parts of the brain involved with thinking. Earth shattering.

It's a real physical effect of some kind you can observe so that's a demonstration that prayer does in fact do something beyond a person talking to their imaginary friend who doesn't exist.

One question: if this stuff is proven as you submit, why aren't all neuroscientists religious?

Because they're under assumption that consciousness is a byproduct of brain function alone. Of course there is no particular evidence for this, it's really just a belief popular within the scientific community at this point.

No, I don't know. Hey, I guess that's why they call me an atheist!

I don't know either but I do believe, what do you believe? You don't know? If you don't know yourself you can't really say or claim anything at all. You would have to rule yourself out of the debate entirely.

[Esquilax]

What do you mean demonstrate the existence of Jesus?

I mean, prove that he existed: there's no extra-biblical accounts of the guy, and even assuming he existed, no reason beyond a pre-existing bias to think he was god made flesh. Why should I take one story that's been written and rewritten as true over countless others, or even over the evidence that, so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate the truth of any form of supernatural claim?

[Sword of Christ]

Jesus certainly existed there's no real academic doubt over that. He may have different than the gospels portrayed but we certainly have his real words and teachings for the most part. A little bit may have been embellished. The first writings we have only date to around 20 years after his death there wasn't enough time to form an elaborate folk myth like King Arthur. We talking about a 1st century Jewish Rabbi and healer who spoke with the authority of God and forgave sins and was put to death for blasphemy. There are non-Biblical accounts written by Roman historians who substantiate this point. If there was no evidence that Jesus had ever existed at all this is something they at the time would have been keen to point out. They even attempt to give an explanation of his power as black magic learned from Egypt.

[Esquilax]

Jesus certainly existed there's no real academic doubt over that. He may have different than the gospels portrayed but we certainly have his real words and teachings for the most part.

This bit rather clashes with the next bit...

A little bit may have been embellished. The first writings we have only date to around 20 years after his death there wasn't enough time to form an elaborate folk myth like King Arthur.

First of all, twenty years hardly makes those accounts contemporary, and furthermore, if he was a real person why don't we have any writings from when he was alive, or things he wrote himself?

Second of all, you're severely overestimating the culture at the time; it isn't like today, where every little thing is recorded, and with permanence at that. In a less than scientifically grounded culture already given to accepting supernatural claims, accepting things like this isn't as hard going as you seem to think.

We talking about a 1st century Jewish Rabbi and healer who spoke with the authority of God and forgave sins and was put to death for blasphemy.

Right, so why no contemporary accounts?

There are non-Biblical accounts written by Roman historians who substantiate this point.

I'm willing to do some research if you'll kindly mention some names. I'm sure there are others here well versed enough to determine how much of this is true, too.

[Sword of Christ]

This bit rather clashes with the next bit...

Not really, there are many historical figures for which we don't have 100% entirely complete information of their life, like Socrates or Hannibal of Carthage. Jesus would be more akin to them than to King Arthur, who probably did exist as well though we know practically nothing about him.

First of all, twenty years hardly makes those accounts contemporary, and furthermore, if he was a real person why don't we have any writings from when he was alive, or things he wrote himself?

20 years was well within living memory even back then so if Jesus hadn't existed someone would have just said. But no-one argued about Jesus existence only his divinity.

Second of all, you're severely overestimating the culture at the time; it isn't like today, where every little thing is recorded, and with permanence at that. In a less than scientifically grounded culture already given to accepting supernatural claims, accepting things like this isn't as hard going as you seem to think.

1st century Jews wouldn't have been easily willing to accept God as a man or physical resurrections from the dead before the end times. They weren't necessarily any more gullible than people living today these were intelligent civilised people.

Right, so why no contemporary accounts?

The gospel accounts had their original source in people who had known Jesus and put his teachings to memory. This was then written down by the first Jewish Christian communities. Within 20 years of Christs crucifixion there were people who believed in Christ so passionately that they were prepared top martyr themselves for it. No-one ever did this over Zeus, Mithras or some mythical figure. Again this was well within living memory of Jesus himself so close enough to contemporary not hundreds of years later.

I'm willing to do some research if you'll kindly mention some names. I'm sure there are others here well versed enough to determine how much of this is true, too.

Here we go.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-ne...dor-people

Now these being non-Christians if there was any real doubt as to Jesus actual historical existence they would have been keen to have mentioned this. Or if Jesus did exist and was put to death and remained dead and rotted away they would have been keen to point out the tomb with Jesus corpse still inside. No-one did this as they didn't have the body so what they did was claim that Jesus followers stole his body to perpetuate the myth.