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

[DogmaHunter]

The Father. John 14 and His prayer is in John 17

And who's "The Father", if not God?
And is God not Jesus?

So, Jesus prays to himself? Right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not suggest that at all! Life is hugely valuable, eternal life is priceless, but life here on earth is challenging and only somewhat rewarding.

I don't know... it did sound quite like glorifying death.

 

[Hammster]

Because infanticide - always immoral.

And if you are going to ask why, then honestly, when you use the word "immoral", I don't know what you are talking about.

Then you're going to have to define what you mean by that word to me first, because obviously, we have a different understanding of it.

No, I'm not going to explain to you why it is immoral to indiscriminatly slaughter a bunch of innocent toddlers.

Now you can answer my question:

Is there any action that your god could potentially engage in, that would be labeled as being "immoral"?

Note that I'm not asking if he would engage in such. I'm asking: is there an action, that if your god would do it, it would be immoral?

Because if there isn't, then calling your god "benevolent" or "moral", seems meaningless.

I had two simple questions, neither of which you answered. I’ll wait for those before we get sidetracked by your questions.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I am guessing that the Jewish people in the camps weren't praying for NATIONAL salvation. Poor attempt at diversion on your part.

First, you apply Christian Scripture, to non-Christians. Would Saint James have applied those words, to those who do not accept Christ?

Then, anyway, you say Jews, being righteous, did not have their prayers answered. But tens of millions of Jews have been proclaiming their prayers answered for 70 years, since our grand-parents' generation until today.

God in heaven answers the prayers of humans on earth, the way God chooses to do so. Biblical scholars have always noted the collective, national nature of God's action in human history.

You claimed Jews' prayers weren't answered. Jews themselves have been contradicting you for 70 years. They would claim they understand God's ways better than you.

If you think God should answer prayers individualistically, take it up with God. But as to the assertion that God does not answer prayers in any way shape or form, the OP has been refuted twice over --

• Saint James would not have applied the words of James 5:16 to non-Christians who do not accept Jesus as Christ, such being the Christian definition of "righteousness" (right or wrong);
• Jews have been celebrating 2000 years of their prayers being finally answered daily (e.g. Wailing Wall) and annually (e.g. national birth-day celebrations) for 70 years

If you wish to start a new thread, impugning God for not answer prayers as individualistically as you would like, please do so. But tens of millions of Jews will this year visit the wailing wall, and give thanks for the answering of two millennia of their national prayers.

QED

 

[cvanwey]

Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back? Was there a promise made somewhere?

I'll take a crack at this...

Prior to honestly answering this question, two topics need clarification.

1. In this direct context, please describe, define, and maybe even provide direct synonyms for the word 'immoral'? This word means differing things to differing people... I mean, it is simply that 'God never promised anything prior, and therefore can do what He wishes?'

2. How do we know such a scenario was directed by a higher power, as opposed to the more probable result of a mere human writing a story, and injecting their believed deity as 'inspiration'?

Taking your question for 'face-value', it would appear that whatever God does or commands IS moral; as God IS claimed as 'moral'. Furthermore, if you can demonstrate God's hand in such acts, as opposed to the more probable conclusion of humans doing stuff to other humans, and claiming 'God directives', then we can discuss; as I too agree that humans do not live forever and 'God calling his humans back to heaven', does not matter whether it is done at birth or at age 100

But before we can directly jump to this result, you have ALOT of work ahead of you; in demonstrating 1. and 2. above...

 

[Hammster]

I'll take a crack at this...

Prior to honestly answering this question, two topics need clarification.

1. In this direct context, please describe, define, and maybe even provide direct synonyms for the word 'immoral'? This word means differing things to differing people... I mean, it is simply that 'God never promised anything prior, and therefore can do what He wishes?'

2. How do we know such a scenario was directed by a higher power, as opposed to the more probable result of a mere human writing a story, and injecting their believed deity as 'inspiration'?

Taking your question for 'face-value', it would appear that whatever God does or commands IS moral; as God IS claimed as 'moral'. Furthermore, if you can demonstrate God's hand in such acts, as opposed to the more probable conclusion of humans doing stuff to other humans, and claiming 'God directives', then we can discuss; as I too agree that humans do not live forever and 'God calling his humans back to heaven', does not matter whether it is done at birth or at age 100

But before we can directly jump to this result, you have ALOT of work ahead of you; in demonstrating 1. and 2. above...

No, I don’t have to.

The questions still stand. Take a crack or don’t.

 

[cvanwey]

No, I don’t have to.

The questions still stand. Take a crack or don’t.

I already did. Until you can demonstrate absolute/objectivity in the word 'immoral', and also demonstrate that such events were not mere humans doing stuff to other humans, while claiming their believed God's hand, we are simply arguing over a hypothetical situation.

So please define 'immoral'. Please demonstrate your believed God's direct hand in this conclusion.

If you can do neither, than your question(s) are no more warranted or relevant than asking a similar hypothetical 'moral dilemma' from the sighted Holy Qur'an.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I already did. Until you can demonstrate absolute/objectivity in the word 'immoral', and also demonstrate that such events were not mere humans doing stuff to other humans, while claiming their believed God's hand, we are simply arguing over a hypothetical situation.

So please define 'immoral'. Please demonstrate your believed God's direct hand in this conclusion.

If you can do neither, than your question(s) are no more warranted or relevant than asking a similar hypothetical 'moral dilemma' from the sighted Holy Qur'an.

...or from the Humanist Manifesto(s) or the Communist Manifesto, either.

 

[cvanwey]

...or from the Humanist Manifesto(s) or the Communist Manifesto, either.

Correct. If the pronouncements or assertions come from mere human beings, then yes. Is it safe to say most agree on the larger issues, like murder, theft, etc..? But again, it's very situational; but still subjective to interpretation.

If one can actually demonstrate the said event was inspired by someone or something other than a human, 'above humans', then we can at least begin coherently.

But until then, I assert that such events were orchestrated and carried out by humans, and humans alone. The burden of proof rests upon the assertion that such events had 'God's hand.' I also assert that a 'moral' is synonymous with the term 'well-being' in some/most respects. But again, words are invented by humans and have no intrinsic or universal never-changing definitions. But for the time-being, to speak about a 'moral', one could easily replace the word 'moral' with 'well-being', and you most likely can come to the same conclusions to most/all topics of inquiry.

I get what @Hammster is asking. However, until you can demonstrate anything other than human-to-human interactions, it's all relative and blah blah blah...

 

[Sam91]

And who's "The Father", if not God?
And is God not Jesus?

So, Jesus prays to himself? Right?

This is off topic. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. One God in three persons.

Jesus while on Earth did the Father's will. I do not pretend to have an unfallible understanding of these things but Jesus was fully God and fully human in order to live the life that we couldn't, in order to be that spotless sacrifice of atonement for us.

I have no qualms about Jesus praying humbly and sincerely to the Godhead and am inspired by that now I think of it. Thank you for giving me that opportunity.

 

[cvanwey]

This is off topic. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. One God in three persons.

Jesus while on Earth did the Father's will. I do not pretend to have an unfallible understanding of these things but Jesus was fully God and fully human in order to live the life that we couldn't, in order to be that spotless sacrifice of atonement for us.

I have no qualms about Jesus praying humbly and sincerely to the Godhead and am inspired by that now I think of it. Thank you for giving me that opportunity.

Not so fast...

If God, the Father, and Jesus are all the same being, then whom did He atone to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not so fast...

If God, the Father, and Jesus are all the same being, then whom did He atone to?

Saying that Jesus is God is like saying that Red is a part of the light spectrum ... so there's little need to ask this, cvanwey. Yes, Jesus is 'God'; No, He isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit.

 

[cvanwey]

Saying that Jesus is God is like saying that Red is a part of the light spectrum ... so there's little need to ask this, cvanwey. Yes, Jesus is 'God'; No, He isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit.

You did not answer my question. Making reparations and/or atonement implies doing so to appease some higher council, state of dictated authority/law, or a supreme authority of some kind. Or in lesser cases, one person atones to another person. But I doubt God was atoning to humans, because they did not make the laws in such a case...So I again ask...

If the entire spectrum of such claimed beings are of one entity (Father, Son, Jesus, Holy Ghost, etc, or other...), then who/whom is God atoning to?

Furthermore, I don't see one color (from an infinite color wheel) making claims or an association to the rest of the color wheel; so I'm not sure why your provided analogy becomes the slightest bit relevant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You did not answer my question. Making reparations and/or atonement implies doing so to appease some higher council, state of dictated authority/law, or a supreme authority of some kind. Or in lesser cases, one person atones to another person. But I doubt God was atoning to humans...So I again ask...

If the entire spectrum of such claimed beings are of one entity (Father, Son, Jesus, Holy Ghost, etc, or other...), then who/whom is God atoning to?

Furthermore, I don't see one color (from an infinite color wheel) making claims or an association to the rest of the color wheel; so I'm not sure why your provided analogy becomes the slightest bit relevant.

Typologically, Jesus is analogous to the Paschal Lamb, and by this New Covenant application, He acts (and fulfills) His role as the chosen 'Lamb of God,' providing a 'cover of grace, mercy, and forgiveness' for our sins before the face of God the Father, and thereby, when we place our faith in the Father by way of the Son, then God, the Holy Spirit communes with us. It's not hard to figure out, and I'm sure you've heard all of this kind of thing about being "at-one-ment" with God many times before at church during earlier periods of your life.

 

[cvanwey]

Typologically, Jesus is analogous to the Paschal Lamb, and by this New Covenant application, He acts (and fulfills) His role as the chosen 'Lamb of God,' providing a 'cover of grace, mercy, and forgiveness' for our sins before the face of God the Father, and thereby, when we place our faith in the Father by way of the Son, then God, the Holy Spirit communes with us. It's not hard to figure out, and I'm sure you've heard all of this kind of thing about being "at-one-ment" with God many times before at church during earlier periods of your life.

No, it's not hard to figure out. God is the law giver. Jesus is part of God. Regardless of how might one want to provide analogies, the conclusion remains. Jesus IS God. Why? Because apparently, when He resurrected, where did he return to? (Rhetorical)...

As I'm sure you've been asked many of times.... 'Do you believe Jesus was separate from God?' Or, 'Do you believe in three Gods or one God?'

As you also know...

trin·i·ty
/ˈtrinədē/
noun
noun: Holy Trinity
the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So I once again ask...

Who/whom did Jesus actually atone to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it's not hard to figure out. God is the law giver. Jesus is part of God. Regardless of how might one want to provide analogies, the conclusion remains. Jesus IS God. Why? Because apparently, when He resurrected, where did he return to? (Rhetorical)...

As I'm sure you've been asked many of times.... 'Do you believe Jesus was separate from God?' Or, 'Do you believe in three Gods or one God?'

As you also know...

trin·i·ty
/ˈtrinədē/
noun
noun: Holy Trinity
the Christian Godhead as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So I once again ask...

Who/whom did Jesus actually atone to?

I've answered this in other places here at CF. Go find them.

 

[cvanwey]

I've answered this in other places here at CF. Go find them.

I've said a lot of things to a lot of other people too. I'm not sure how stating as such helps here? You could have simply answered my direct and simple question three responses ago. It does not require a long answer. It requires one word.

God atones to ----- Himself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've said a lot of things to a lot of other people too. I'm not sure how stating as such helps here? You could have simply answered my direct and simple question three responses ago. It does not require a long answer. It requires one word.

God atones to ----- Himself.

God the Father atones for the sins of humanity through the "real-time" terrestrial activities that were set in motion by His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit... that would be more accurate.

 

[cvanwey]

God the Father atones for the sins of humanity through the "real-time" terrestrial activities that were set in motion by His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit... that would be more accurate.

You forgot to add:

'God the Father atones for the sins of humanity, (which is to Himself), through the "real-time" terrestrial activities that were set in motion by His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit... that would be more accurate.'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You forgot to add:

'God the Father atones for the sins of humanity, (which is to Himself), through the "real-time" terrestrial activities that were set in motion by His Son in the power of the Holy Spirit... that would be more accurate.'

No, Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is no more that Father than your heart can be mistaken for your brain, cvanwey, although both of these together are aspects of the one "you."