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

[cvanwey]

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 ............................

Oh, ok. My bad!

To argue 'what is truth' is an endless and entirely new topic, in and of itself. I feel you are educated enough, as well as I, to just bypass such an endless and fruitless endeavor Unless you wish to go down each truth statement line by line, and evaluate accordingly.

(start rhetorical)

I'll start...

The world is not a flat disc, true or false...

(end rhetorical)

Once we have concurred, by whatever 'truth standards' are applicable as such, we only have billions of truth statements or claims yet to go. But I already know we will agree on most, absent politics and religion mostly, so it again become futile really....

In regards to the OP, did prayer help the Jews while in their death camps? I know I'm presenting an unfalsifiable question, so maybe this is where the 'Mexican standoff' begins...?

 

[Hammster]

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

He chooses who will believe. Unbelief is the default.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To argue 'what is truth' is an endless and entirely new topic, in and of itself. I feel you are educated enough, as well as I, to just bypass such an endless and fruitless endeavor Unless you wish to go down each truth statement line by line, and evaluate accordingly.

(start rhetorical)

I'll start...

The world is not a flat disc, true or false...

(end rhetorical)

Once we have concurred, by whatever 'truth standards' are applicable as such, we only have billions of truth statements or claims yet to go. But I already know we will agree on most, absent politics and religion mostly, so it again become futile really....

Oh! So would it be safe to say that you subscribe to some form of "Common Sense" epistemology, or would this be too definitive and too much of a straight-jacket to describe your own epistemological intuitions?

Philosophy of Common Sense - New World Encyclopedia

In regards to the OP, did prayer help the Jews while in their death camps? I know I'm presenting an unfalsifiable question, so maybe this is where the 'Mexican standoff' begins...?

Did you happen to read what I told Steve above?

 

[cvanwey]

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

In your prior post, you stated in post #118, 'Belief happens when God changes our heart.'

So does God change your heart, (or) does the human change their own heart?

And on another note, belief is not a choice. If so, choose to believe you can fly without artificial means. You cannot, because you understand the governing laws disallow it.

Actually try and choose to believe in elves, absent of any evidence, or experiences to the contrary. I assume you do not currently believe in elves. Can you simply 'will' yourself to believe in them? Nope! You could tell others, or even yourself you 'believe', but do you really? Most likely not. You cannot force a belief. The belief is very much not a choice, it instead is a conclusion, base upon your experiences.

In conclusion, since belief is not a choice, God either chooses whom believes in Him (and/or) belief is concluded based upon your personal interpreted evidence.

So when one plugs these two factors into Christianity, you don't see a problem? (i.e.)

And we haven't even tackled acceptance yet...

 

[cvanwey]

He chooses who will believe. Unbelief is the default.

So then God controls the belief, not the human. So God chooses for 5/7 people NOT to believe that Yahweh is real?

 

[cvanwey]

Oh! So would it be safe to say that you subscribe to some form of "Common Sense" epistemology, or would this be too definitive and too much of a straight-jacket to describe your own epistemological intuitions?

Philosophy of Common Sense - New World Encyclopedia

Did you happen to read what I told Steve above?

I kind of feel you are presenting red herrings here...

My point is simple...

Either the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, or it isn't.

You have already acknowledged that it may not be. So my validated point remains that to quote passages from the Bible is no better then to quote passages from another book, any other book.

And you did not answer my question, regarding the OP. Did prayer help the Jews in Germany, or did He change His mind? Begin... 'Mexican standoff'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I kind of feel you are presenting red herrings here...

I can't help if you 'feel' that way ... but being that you're not a philosophy major, I can understand your tendency to think this.

My point is simple...

Either the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, or it isn't.

Sure. You're basic point is "simple," which is why it's wrong. I eschew the use of the made up (and fairly new term) "inerrancy" as it has been applied by evangelicals to the Bible to begin with.

You have already acknowledged that it may not be. So my validated point remains that to quote passages from the Bible is no better then to quote passages from another book, any other book.

No, I never said that quoting from the Bible is 'no better' than quoting from another book. That's you saying that, not me, cvanwey.

And you did not answer my question, regarding the OP. Did prayer help the Jews in Germany, or did He change His mind? Begin... 'Mexican standoff'

No, it did not help the Jews in Germany. Why would it? (Again, see my comments which I made to Steve...)

 

[cvanwey]

I can't help if you 'feel' that way ... but being that you're not a philosophy major, I can understand your tendency to think this.

I'm sorry, but I had a great chuckle reading this... And it adds nothing, other than to demonstrate your feelings of 'superiority' and pompous nature, in which is presented. But hey, I do not hold it against you; just letting you know because I actually respect you.

Sure. You're basic point is "simple," which is why it's wrong. I eschew the use of the made up (and fairly new term) "inerrancy" as it has been applied by evangelicals to the Bible to begin with.

This again lends nothing to my observation. Blank assertions gets no one nowhere.

First of all, the length of existence to a word has no relevancy to whether or not it becomes valid. As I'm sure you already know, words are just labels, elements, and symbols to define thoughts and ideas. All words are 'made up'. There exists no true intrinsic infinite meaning of words. Humans use them to distinguish ideas and thoughts. And in this case, you know exactly what I mean by the use of 'inerrant'.

And okay, I'll bite... Why are the 'Evangelicals' wrong?

No, I never said that quoting from the Bible is 'no better' than quoting from another book. That's you saying that, not me, cvanwey.

It's not me saying anything really. The Bible is either flawless, or it isn't. You claim, as well as I, that it isn't. So I then raise the logical question... How might we determine which parts are?.?.?.?.?

No, it did not help the Jews in Germany. Why would it? (Again, see my comments which I made to Steve...)

I care not to sift through 100+ posts. If you wish to 'quote' the response, or at least provide a post number, great...

 

[Hammster]

In your prior post, you stated in post #118, 'Belief happens when God changes our heart.'

So does God change your heart, (or) does the human change their own heart?

And on another note, belief is not a choice. If so, choose to believe you can fly without artificial means. You cannot, because you understand the governing laws disallow it.

Actually try and choose to believe in elves, absent of any evidence, or experiences to the contrary. I assume you do not currently believe in elves. Can you simply 'will' yourself to believe in them? Nope! You could tell others, or even yourself you 'believe', but do you really? Most likely not. You cannot force a belief. The belief is very much not a choice, it instead is a conclusion, base upon your experiences.

In conclusion, since belief is not a choice, God either chooses whom believes in Him (and/or) belief is concluded based upon your personal interpreted evidence.

So when one plugs these two factors into Christianity, you don't see a problem? (i.e.)

And we haven't even tackled acceptance yet...

I’m not even sure what you want me to respond to.

 

[Hammster]

So then God controls the belief, not the human. So God chooses for 5/7 people NOT to believe that Yahweh is real?

Unbelief is the default.

 

[cvanwey]

Unbelief is the default.

I understand you are saying 'unbelief is the default'. Does God choose which humans will believe?

 

[Hammster]

I understand you are saying 'unbelief is the default'. Does God choose which humans will believe?

Of course.

 

[cvanwey]

Of course.

Then you don't see the problem?

If God chooses which people will believe, and belief is required as step one to enter God's kingdom, then God is effectively choosing to deliberately exclude at least five of every seven humans, by no possible choice of their own; (instead through investigation, inquiry, and later discovery to come to an educated conclusion).

By your own emission, God chooses when someone will or will not believe. So for all purposes; faith, free will, free choice, or any other canned term apologists seem to use becomes completely irrelevant.

God dictates who will believe, as it is not based upon human conclusions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sorry, but I had a great chuckle reading this... And it adds nothing, other than to demonstrate your feelings of 'superiority' and pompous nature, in which is presented. But hey, I do not hold it against you; just letting you know because I actually respect you.



This again lends nothing to my observation. Blank assertions gets no one nowhere.

First of all, the length of existence to a word has no relevancy to whether or not it becomes valid. As I'm sure you already know, words are just labels, elements, and symbols to define thoughts and ideas. All words are 'made up'. There exists no true intrinsic infinite meaning of words. Humans use them to distinguish ideas and thoughts. And in this case, you know exactly what I mean by the use of 'inerrant'.

And okay, I'll bite... Why are the 'Evangelicals' wrong?

Because the Bible doesn't include a comprehensive book on proper applications of Hermeneutics, or comprehensive lessons on Hebrew and Greek culture and language; and there's also the fact that parallel Traditions like the Oral Torah and later, Christian Doctrine, existed among both the Jews and later in the Christian Church. The Bible is essentially the repository of Fundamental Basics, not the comprehensive spiritual lesson in and of itself (despite all of the Protestant protestations involved in their various assertions of Sola Scriptura). The point being that God has in way intended to give us a comprehensive picture to enable us to simply build our truths upon a set of boxes, one upon another in staircase fashion, in order to reach and touch His face by way of our human knowledge alone.

On a personal note, none of the usual arguments--cosmological, teleological, or whatnot--have played definitive roles in my faith, although I do remember restlessly laying in bed after seeing Carl Sagan's “Cosmos” in the early 80's and pondering the vast mystery of “why is there anything here at all” and “what came before the Big Bang.” Needless to say, I can admit that I've experienced many days over the past 30 years where I felt like a chimp in a Kohler Experiment …

It's not me saying anything really. The Bible is either flawless, or it isn't. You claim, as well as I, that it isn't. So I then raise the logical question... How might we determine which parts are?.?.?.?.?

I'll just beat you to the punch and say that, in human terms, none of the verses in the Bible are flawless. But, that would be to say this in "human terms." But then I have to ask, how could any communication given in 'human terms' ever be flawless?

I care not to sift through 100+ posts. If you wish to 'quote' the response, or at least provide a post number, great...

Ok, then: #23, #32, #37, #40.

 

[Theo102]

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

You can't ask a fiction anything.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You can't ask a fiction anything.

Holocaust facts: Where does the figure of 6 million victims come from?

 

[Hammster]

Then you don't see the problem?

If God chooses which people will believe, and belief is required as step one to enter God's kingdom, then God is effectively choosing to deliberately exclude at least five of every seven humans, by no possible choice of their own; (instead through investigation, inquiry, and later discovery to come to an educated conclusion).

By your own emission, God chooses when someone will or will not believe. So for all purposes; faith, free will, free choice, or any other canned term apologists seem to use becomes completely irrelevant.

God dictates who will believe, as it is not based upon human conclusions.

Would it be fair if He chose to save nobody?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

Of course you did. But I of all people won't jump on someone for a personal attack. Though I prefer that people own up to it when they say it.

As far as the bigger picture goes, it's fairly obvious what happened here. You got a little curious about what atheists were saying, got a little alarmed that it made sense and now the defense mechanisms are activating. Now we will see if you retreat back to the echo chamber where they laugh at "men who self-identify as women" despite the fact that every Christian on earth self-identifies as an immortal, trans-dimensional entity which will soon be reincarnated on a new Earth.

 

[Hammster]

Of course you did. But I of all people won't jump on someone for a personal attack. Though I prefer that people own up to it when they say it.

As far as the bigger picture goes, it's fairly obvious what happened here. You got a little curious about what atheists were saying, got a little alarmed that it made sense and now the defense mechanisms are activating. Now we will see if you retreat back to the echo chamber where they laugh at "men who self-identify as women" despite the fact that every Christian on earth self-identifies as an immortal, trans-dimensional entity which will soon be reincarnated on a new Earth.

It wasn’t a personal attack. Or an insult. It’s just an expression that means to not waste your time on those who just don’t care.

I thought it was well known.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It wasn’t a personal attack. Or an insult. It’s just an expression that means to not waste your time on those who just don’t care.

I thought it was well known.

It is well known. The fact that something is well known does not prevent it from being a slur. I don't see why you think a common phrase cannot be used as an insult.