James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[Nihilist Virus]

It’s not free. It cost Christ His life. But it’s free to us.

You have it exactly backwards. It costed Christ absolutely nothing if he is absolutely immortal. What we have to give up is our life and will... which is everything.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Let me try it this way.

Do you have children? Do you have to force them or threaten them to be your children?

I find that analogy to be disingenuous. Should we just be done here?

 

[Hammster]

Hence, the effectual, fervent prayer of the righteous man availeth little.

That would depend on your expectations. If you expect God to just do whatever you want, then you are probably correct.

 

[Hammster]

You have it exactly backwards. It costed Christ absolutely nothing if he is absolutely immortal. What we have to give up is our life and will... which is everything.

Okay. I see that you will just be disagreeable to everything. So there’s no point in continuing.

"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. - Matthew 7:6

 

[Par5]

And if all that you Skeptics can do is infiltrate into a Christian Forums board and begin squatting wherever you feel like you want to without having the decency to actually back up your own supposed statements of "TRUTH" when attempting to denigrate Christian thought, then all I can say is..........................................Psalm 2, buddy! Psalm 2!!! Brace yourself!

What do I have to prove? I have only been stating my opinion that you believe in a god that commits monstrous acts and that you believe this god has every right to do whatever is so wishes, even slaughter women and children. You obviously disagree even though the bible records these acts which most normal people would consider monstrous.
And btw, do you honestly think that you coming out with a threat from an old book that you can't even be sure who the authors are, will somehow worry me? Pathetic!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Okay. I see that you will just be disagreeable to everything. So there’s no point in continuing.

"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. - Matthew 7:6

Great ad hom. Now your opponents are pigs. 'Hey, I'm just saying what the Bible says' is no excuse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do I have to prove? I have only been stating my opinion that you believe in a god that commits monstrous acts and that you believe this god has every right to do whatever is so wishes, even slaughter women and children. You obviously disagree even though the bible records these acts which most normal people would consider monstrous.
And btw, do you honestly think that you coming out with a threat from an old book that you can't even be sure who the authors are, will somehow worry me? Pathetic!

Monstrous acts? By phrasing it this way, by choosing qualifiers to express your point of view, you've implied some form of Absolute Morality. So..................what is this so-called 'absolute' morality by which you judge the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thereby through Christ, also of the Christian Church?

Psalm 2 isn't a threat. It's a promise! And seeing that you take it lightly, I'm under the impression that you're going to help bring it about.

 

[Chriliman]

availeth little.

Ask the six million Jews who were snuffed out by the Nazis.

What? Did God suddenly change his mind about prayer? Maybe he isn't as involved in the affairs of the world as some people think.

It’s not Gods character to retaliate and return evil for evil, therefore, his people die by the hands of sinners instead of killing their enemies and becoming sinners themselves.

 

[Hammster]

Great ad hom. Now your opponents are pigs. 'Hey, I'm just saying what the Bible says' is no excuse.

I never called anyone a pig. It’s an expression.

 

[Par5]

Monstrous acts? By phrasing it this way, by choosing qualifiers to express your point of view, you've implied some form of Absolute Morality. So..................what is this so-called 'absolute' morality by which you judge the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thereby through Christ, also of the Christian Church?

Psalm 2 isn't a threat. It's a promise! And seeing that you take it lightly, I'm under the impression that you're going to help bring it about.

Well, if it's anything like the promise the bible says Jesus made about his return, then I don't have anything to worry about.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Unless some of those who were standing there found the secret of long life, they will be long dead.
I know, Iknow, you're going to tell me what it said is not what it actually means.
As Alice said in Wonderland, it gets "curiouser and curiouser".

 

[cvanwey]

Belief happens when God changes our heart. And yes, at that point it would be foolish to not “accept”. Because at that point you’d see the truth. You see that you are indeed a sinner in need of a Savior and you’d see the great love God has for you. So you’d freely, with love, surrender to Him.

Lets explore belief a little further, by addressing a very simple question...

Is belief a choice?

Based upon your response, I think I may already know your answer. But I do not want to presume.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if it's anything like the promise the bible says Jesus made about his return, then I don't have anything to worry about.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Unless some of those who were standing there found the secret of long life, they will be long dead.
I know, Iknow, you're going to tell me what it said is not what it actually means.
As Alice said in Wonderland, it gets "curiouser and curiouser".

No, the only thing that gets "curiouser and curiouser" is our need to go back and read the following before you and I commence further conversation:

MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose

 

[cvanwey]

With that kind of mindset, we could also throw "science" into the dustbin of things that are also passe.......

...so, do you think that rather than being 'rational' in how we attempt to interpret the Bible as best we can it would be better to be 'irrational' about it? I have to ask because when I hear someone like you make statements like you do and essentially conflate "being rational" with "rationalizing," I get a little concerned.

Being that you appear to pride yourself upon interpretation quite extensively (i.e.) herneneutics, I feel you 'know what I mean, and can apply the appropriate context accordingly.'

But if you feel I need to re-elaborate my prior seemingly axiomatic viewpoints about the literal stated events of the Bible, in which I see people here 'spin', I will be more than happy to address them yet again.

In regards to 'science', I feel you are presenting a major false analogy here. The Bible is a 66 chapter book, representing all truth.

Science, does not have one big 'universal and never-changing Big Book of Science' in which the entire scientific community references again and again, when people challenge their ideas Each idea is challenged and tested upon their own merits and evidence, completely independent from one ancient book comprising of many topics and categories.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Being that you appear to pride yourself upon interpretation quite extensively (i.e.) herneneutics, I feel you 'know what I mean, and can apply the appropriate context accordingly.'

But if you feel I need to re-elaborate my prior seemingly axiomatic viewpoints about the literal stated events of the Bible, in which I see people here 'spin', I will be more than happy to address them yet again.

In regards to 'science', I feel you are presenting a major false analogy here. The Bible is a 66 chapter book, representing all truth.

...the Bible represents "all truth"? Since when? You've obviously read some different books on Biblical Epistemology, or just any epistemology, than I have, apparently.

Science, does not have one big 'universal and never-changing Big Book of Science' in which the entire scientific community references again and again, when people challenge their ideas Each idea is challenged and tested upon their own merits and evidence, completely independent from one ancient book comprising of many topics and categories.

I'm of the other camp that believes in 'two books' of God, so to speak.

 

[cvanwey]

...the Bible represents "all truth"? Since when? You've obviously read some different books on Biblical Epistemology, or just any epistemology, than I have, apparently.

I'm of the other camp that believes in 'two books' of God, so to speak.

Kool, well then it goes without saying, for you specifically, that quoting the Bible itself would be just as useful as quoting any other human written book. I'm glad we've established that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Kool, well then it goes without saying, for you specifically, that quoting the Bible itself would be just as useful as quoting any other man written book. I'm glad we've established that.

No, I just think that quoting the Bible is for the purpose for which God actually gave the Bible, rather than seeing it as some supreme 'go-to' for all things pertaining to human living. It never was intended to be a science text-book, or to be a self-help brochure, or to be a manual on 'how-to-get healthy and wealthy' in three easy steps.

 

[cvanwey]

Belief happens when God changes our heart. And yes, at that point it would be foolish to not “accept”. Because at that point you’d see the truth. You see that you are indeed a sinner in need of a Savior and you’d see the great love God has for you. So you’d freely, with love, surrender to Him.

Based upon your response, it sounds as if you are saying God chooses who will believe/not believe? Is this correct?

 

[cvanwey]

No, I just think that quoting the Bible is for the purpose for which God actually gave the Bible, rather than seeing it as some supreme 'go-to' for all things pertaining to human living. It never was intended to be a science text-book, or to be a self-help brochure, or to be a manual on 'how-to-get healthy and wealthy' in three easy steps.

But if you gladly admit it is not the big universal book of truth, then this may mean that some quotes given within this book may be false?

You were also the one whom mentioned science, not me

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But if you gladly admit it is not the big universal book of truth, then this may mean that some quotes given within this book may be false?

First, you'll have to establish beyond a the shadow of a doubt what constitutes 'Truth' for your own metaphysics as well as what constitutes 'Knowledge' for your own epistemology. Which theories and/or frameworks do you assume are the true theories and/or frameworks for Truth and Knowledge, respectively, cvanwey? See? While I can concede to you that it IS possible that the Bible could be false and that you wouldn't be wrong for saying that it is, if indeed it turns out thus to be truly false, it nearly goes without saying that you'll have to establish what both Truth and Knowledge really are in order to get me to capitulate to your skeptical advances. Otherwise, we're at a Mexican Standoff ............................

You were also the one whom mentioned science, not me

Oh, ok. My bad!

 

[Hammster]

Lets explore belief a little further, by addressing a very simple question...

Is belief a choice?

Based upon your response, I think I may already know your answer. But I do not want to presume.

No, not as in “I can chose to believe that elves are real.”