Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is incorrect. You need to think about it some more.You are replying to post by a monotheist, no if one of these god(s) exist, or asserted god(s), or flavor of god applies.
This is irrelevant. Let's focus on the point here, not hair splitting.No, because in Christianity this is not the only alternative, and your reference to hands and eyes would not even apply to many Christians or others.
This is false. Perhaps you should re-read what cvanwey said.Why would we need to do this? Not that it really matters when your premise is invalid.
You should definitely re-read what cvanwey said. Then, once you've understood it, you'll be in a position to respond to it, and the conversation will be able to move forward.What tasks?
I'm sorry, Tom. I've been thinking about this all day, considering how to reply, but I just have trouble with such a wall of text. You wouldn't mind making it a bit shorter, would you, and with some paragraphs?Maybe I said that in an earlier post...I don't remember without looking through them. In the post you responded to though I don't mean that your question is a nonsense question as such, but that you are approaching it in a way that is unlikely to coincide with any understanding of the topic. Something like someone who doesn't believe in evolution and doesn't want to study the whole topic picking some details as a way of demonstrating why the whole idea must be false. These details seem major if looked at from that perspective - questions about eyes and that kind of thing, details people seize on in the belief that they disprove evolution, without realising that the only thing revealed is that they don't understand the claims made about evolution.
It starts with understanding what is meant by 'ask and you will recieve'. Like any other idea in the bible, that phrase is one part of a whole, a whole that needs to be understood so that you can understand what the individual parts mean. From my study I take the recieve part to refer to less tangible things like guidance, understanding, personal growth and learning in a spiritual sense, things like that. You can study the same things too, and see what conclusions you come to, so long as you are prepared to put the time in and take the text as it is, rather than trying to make it fit into some other mold. For my part, in my experience, I'm satisfied that prayers regarding those kind of things have, at times, been effective for me. The only way to test that idea is to do it yourself - that really is the whole point, the whole thing about the bible is that people are supposed to be living it, individually and together. It is all about experience, mostly shared experience, application, the results of that which can be seen over time. To grasp that you really have to get it into your head that it is not a biological, technical or other testable system in the terms you use - spending some years as an active member of a church that functions as a community (in my experience churches differ greatly in terms of how 'authentic' the experience can be) would give you something to accept or reject, handing out some questionaires wouldn't tell you anything much. If you're thinking about prayer in terms of things like 'God, give me a flaming sword!' or 'heal my disease' I really have no idea if prayers of that sort are directly answered or not, you'd need to investigate some cases if you wanted a definitive answer to that.
I know from experience it's a difficult thing for some people to grasp, I'll always remember someone saying to me, when I suggested that if he wanted to understand Christianity he would need to see it in action, to which he said 'so, you're saying that if I want to know if it's true I have to see it?' (or something similar) - well, to me that obvious answer was 'yes, clearly' but he seemed to think this was a ridiculous idea, and that if it couldn't be 'proven' using some easy to explain formula then it must be untrue. To me that seemed strange, maybe our brains are just wired differently - ?
I'm sorry, Tom. I've been thinking about this all day, considering how to reply, but I just have trouble with such a wall of text. You wouldn't mind making it a bit shorter, would you, and with some paragraphs?
I'm sorry, Tom. I've been thinking about this all day, considering how to reply, but I just have trouble with such a wall of text. You wouldn't mind making it a bit shorter, would you, and with some paragraphs?
I think, actually, that you did strongly imply that my questions made no sense. I'm glad you're not saying that now. I have a feeling that you mean I am unlikely to see the truth of prayer because of my skeptical attitude. But in fact, that's quite incorrect. I have an intellectually honest attitude; if God is real and prayer represents some kind of communication with Him, I want to know the truth.In the post you responded to though I don't mean that your question is a nonsense question as such, but that you are approaching it in a way that is unlikely to coincide with any understanding of the topic.
You're right, creationists don't want to know the truth. They think they already do know the truth, and that any facts, no matter how wrong they show creationists to be, must be lies.Something like someone who doesn't believe in evolution and doesn't want to study the whole topic picking some details as a way of demonstrating why the whole idea must be false.
Right. Well, since I'm not a dogmatic creationist, all you have to do is point out my errors, and then I'll be able to know the truth. Let's see you do so.These details seem major if looked at from that perspective - questions about eyes and that kind of thing, details people seize on in the belief that they disprove evolution, without realising that the only thing revealed is that they don't understand the claims made about evolution.
What makes you think I haven't studied this?It starts with understanding what is meant by 'ask and you will recieve'. Like any other idea in the bible, that phrase is one part of a whole, a whole that needs to be understood so that you can understand what the individual parts mean.
Okay. Let me stop you right there.From my study I take the recieve part to refer to less tangible things like guidance, understanding, personal growth and learning in a spiritual sense, things like that.
First of all, this seems to be implying that I have not studied the Bible and the Christian religion in any great depth before. Does that seem to you to be patronising or presumptuous in any way?You can study the same things too, and see what conclusions you come to, so long as you are prepared to put the time in and take the text as it is, rather than trying to make it fit into some other mold.
Forgive me for saying so, but a weaker endorsement would be hard to think of.For my part, in my experience, I'm satisfied that prayers regarding those kind of things have, at times, been effective for me.
You seem to be implying that because I do not agree with you, I have not studied the Bible. I'm not sure this conclusion is justified on your part.TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE YOU NEED A DECENT GRASP OF THE WHOLE BOOK.
Look at it from my point of view. There are over three thousand gods and goddesses throughout history to choose from. Which one is real? I do not have the time to "try out" a religion. I would not have the time in a hundred lifetimes.The only way to test that idea is to do it yourself - that really is the whole point, the whole thing about the bible is that people are supposed to be living it, individually and together. It is all about experience, mostly shared experience, application, the results of that which can be seen over time.
Why?To grasp that you really have to get it into your head that it is not a biological, technical or other testable system in the terms you use - spending some years as an active member of a church that functions as a community
Sorry, "you have no idea"? Then why do you think you are worth listening to?If you're thinking about prayer in terms of things like 'God, give me a flaming sword!' or 'heal my disease' I really have no idea if prayers of that sort are directly answered or not, you'd need to investigate some cases if you wanted a definitive answer to that.
This is exactly what I am attempting to determine through this thread. If God does actually grant prayers - something that millions of Christians believe, the Bible supports through countless stories of people praying for things to happen and their happening, and common sense - then the effects of this phenomenon should be perceptible.SOME THINGS CAN BE TESTED EMPIRICALLY WITH USEFUL RESULTS. SOME THINGS CAN’T. SOME THINGS CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY A CONTEXTUAL EXPERIENCE.
I think you might be misremembering. I wonder if what your friend said was "So if I want to see if Christianity is true, I have to first believe that it is?"I know from experience it's a difficult thing for some people to grasp, I'll always remember someone saying to me, when I suggested that if he wanted to understand Christianity he would need to see it in action, to which he said 'so, you're saying that if I want to know if it's true I have to see it?' (or something similar) - well, to me that obvious answer was 'yes, clearly' but he seemed to think this was a ridiculous idea, and that if it couldn't be 'proven' using some easy to explain formula then it must be untrue. To me that seemed strange, maybe our brains are just wired differently - ?
I have a feeling that you mean I am unlikely to see the truth of prayer because of my skeptical attitude.
As for you, you know that God exists, don't you?
What makes you think I haven't studied this?
which seems to amount to nothing more than your personal opinion?
many of whom would certainly bitterly disagree with you.
First of all, this seems to be implying that I have not studied the Bible and the Christian religion in any great depth before. Does that seem to you to be patronising or presumptuous in any way?
This is not an art appreciation society. This is not a Book Club.
Which one is real? I do not have the time to "try out" a religion. I would not have the time in a hundred lifetimes.
Look at it like this: if God did not exist, then what do you think would be the effect on a person of sitting quietly, focusing on their most virtuous thoughts, and putting their feelings into words as they dialogue with an imaginary and benevolent being? Would you agree that such an experience would be very likely to lead to calmer and happier states of mind, feelings of focus, confidence and kindness, and perhaps inspiration, accessing one's own inspiration, courage and wisdom?
If that's what prayer does for you, it does the same thing for me, without God.
that because I do not agree with you
I can imagine that being part of a supportive community reinforcing positive feelings about God might be a good way to convince oneself that He exists.
Sorry, "you have no idea"? Then why do you think you are worth listening to?
but they are reporting the same results as you are. How strange
I think you might be misremembering. I wonder if what your friend said was "So if I want to see if Christianity is true, I have to first believe that it is?"
We'll see about that. So far, I'd say that your responses haven't helped me much at all in the topic of this thread, what does prayer do.No, not really, more that your method of approaching the question is unlikely to lead to a useful answer.
I mean that when you say "I believe that God exists" you mean it more as you would say "I believe that my right hand exists". Something you could conceivably be mistaken about, but don't expect to be. Am I right?I believe it. What do you mean by know? I could have a guess what you mean, but you can tell me.
Cards on the table. I have had many years of discussing and debating Christian apologetics. I have read a number of books on the bible, read large parts of the Bible itself, and consider myself familiar with its content and meaning. I may not have read as much of or about the Bible as you have, but I am not a beginner either.To me it seems fairly self-evident, but maybe you can prove me wrong.
I was expecting you to back up your arguments with reason, evidence and logic.Well...yes. What else were you expecting?
Allow me to introduce them.It hasn't happened yet, on this topic. Some people get riled over literal interpretations.
In a debating forum, I would look for more than impressions and opinions. I would look for proof, evidence, reasons and logic.That's my impression. As above - what else would you expect in a forum, other than impressions and opinions? If you think there is something else, try starting a discussion on something you are pretty certain of yourself.
I think I'd first have to be convinced that the Bible is worth studying. If God is real, it's the most important book in the world. If God isn't, then it isn't. For the moment, why don't we confine ourselves to the topic of this thread, and discuss what prayer does and how we can know if it is real?To get the bible, you first have to start with what it actually is. I can recommend some books if you like. Then you can take it on its own terms and have a think about what it actually means to say that all of part of it is 'true'.
And yet prayer should be the simplest thing in the world to demonstrate. Elijah piled wood high, challenged the God Baal to light it, and then mocked the priests when they failed. Then he prayed to God, who responded by sending down fire from heaven.Actually those contexts would be closer analogues to how to understand the bible than the kind of (to my mind) rather strange notion that you can easily get to some sort of yes/no about it without a thoroughly grounded understanding of what the thing is you are dealing with.
So what? From my point of view, no religion is any more likely to be real than any other. "Try it and see" is a rational approach, except that there is a huge number of choices to consider, and no indication of which one to go for.Christianity is quite unique in the claim ' try it and see', in terms of this being an actual teaching of the founder of the religion. Doubtless other religions have their own yardsticks.
Alright. I will.That's not what I mean, I find that kind of meditation useful also. Without either doing it yourself or going inside someone else's head you'll be stuck with your own idea about what the person's expression of prayer means. Just give it a go, assume God might exist and ask him to influence your thinking in some way.
So far, Tom, I have seen no evidence from you that God exists or that prayer works.I'm not clear what you disagree with, you seem to be just be making statements of things that you think.
More than that. It applies to just about every religious belief. So why should I choose Christianity first?Sure, if that were all it was. This is the problem with treating something real theoretically. You can't know what some things mean unless you do them. That is one thing I know to be true, and it applies to many more things than religious belief.
Be nice. I'm just getting bored here, wondering if you have a point to make.Who you listen to or don't is up to you, not me. Deal with your own ___ , don't fling it about.
Every time a person from a non-Christian religion prays to their god, and reports successful communication.Are they? Where's that?
Well, you're the one who talked to him, so you'd know. But since you say you couldn't remember what he said exactly, I'd venture the guess that he told you that assuming something is true before you have reason to believe that it is ("assume that God might be true," as you put it to me) is illogical.Nope, he just didn't seem to understand the difference between spinning some ideas in your mind and actually doing something so that you actually know in yourself what that thing is.
I think I'd first have to be convinced that the Bible is worth studying. If God is real, it's the most important book in the world. If God isn't, then it isn't.
In a debating forum, I would look for more than impressions and opinions. I would look for proof, evidence, reasons and logic.
Well, you're the one who talked to him, so you'd know. But since you say you couldn't remember what he said exactly, I'd venture the guess that he told you that assuming something is true before you have reason to believe that it is ("assume that God might be true," as you put it to me) is illogical.
The bible says of itself that the way to understand it is to live it - I don't see how that can be any plainer. .
I mean that when you say "I believe that God exists" you mean it more as you would say "I believe that my right hand exists". Something you could conceivably be mistaken about, but don't expect to be. Am I right?
oh so I have to see it to know if it's true?'
It does, and living as if it might be true to find out if it is does not require extant belief that it is. It does require a motive to find out if it is, obviously, but doing anything requires a motive.
Science is actually the same, if people refused to believe it was even possible that science could find anything out, no one would ever use scientific methods to explore for information.
Theism is philosophy, Christianity is theism, and in philosophy, application to life is a common method of exploration.
I'm not so sure if you can really compare scientific method and understanding literature. Scientific method involves generating an idea and testing it, understanding the meaning of something written about human experience entails a much broader and more open ended mode of exploration.
Sorry, all you're saying is that I am unable to debate you until I have acquired what you consider to be a sufficient level of knowledge. This is nothing but an empty claim on your part. For my part, I am quite happy with the level of knowledge I already have of Christianity, considering it quite sufficient to correct the errors in logic that Christians fall into. If I am wrong, then I invite you to demonstrate it.That's the whole issue, really, kind of a catch 22. I'm not suggesting that you need to read the bible with 'faith glasses', rather than you should do some groundwork to identify what it is that is the basis of this discussion. I'd highly recommend Auerbach's mimesis as a starting point for beginning to understand the meaning of literature in its own context. Reading mimesis can provide a good foundation for then reading works that assess the bible specifically in its own context, which gives you some tools for understanding how to evaluate what this or that thing might mean. Without that common understanding it's a bit of a pointless and pretty much endless game of ping pong. I'm not sure why that isn't clear, so I'll try and illustrate it.
If you wish to debate a creationist, a secondary school level of knowledge is generally all you need. As for debating Christians, it's not that difficult. No matter how learned a Christian is, their arguments are generally based on one or more logical errors, and are thus not difficult to correct. If you don't believe me, then I suggest you stop talking about how wrong I am and attempt to prove it.Taking evolution as an example, as it is a clear bone of contention for some people; as far as I am concerned, ToE is an accurate way of describing what the relevant evidence points to. I only have however a basic understanding of it, beyond secondary school I didn't study any science subjects. It only really interests me when some element of ToE coincides with some other topic I am interested in. But, if I suddenly decided that I wanted to engage in debating ToE for some reason, it would be clear to me from the outset that I wouldn't get very far by picking out this or that detail and trying to discuss it, as I would have no real idea of how understanding the whole body of ToE would be relevant to that detail. So, if I wanted to debate ToE (which I don't) I would first ensure that I had a good grasp of the theory as it currently stands. That would enable me to engage in useful and interesting debate about it.
Sure. I understand perfectly well what the Bible is, and am ready to debate it with you.There is no need to believe in the bible to understand what it is, as a text, to develop some understanding of how it 'works' as a text, and so on. With that understanding some useful debate can take place, without that it's not much different to a watching a dog chase its own tail.
No, you are incorrect. Not all things do need to be understood on their own terms. There are objective realities. For example, either God exists or He doesn't. If two people disagree on God existing, then one of them is right and the other is wrong.There's a pretty plain idea you don't seem to be getting; things need to be understood on their own terms. You can find out if fire is hot by putting your hand near it; those are the terms of 'does fire feel hot on my hand'. Fire has the effect of radiating heat that you can feel. The bible says of itself that the way to understand it is to live it - I don't see how that can be any plainer. Those are the terms of 'what does the bible mean'. The bible has the effect of applying to a mode of living.
I grasp the idea fully, Tom. I simply disagree with you about its correctness.You appear not to recognise that there are 'other things' aside from the things that you seem to see as 'the only things'. There are a great many things in life that I have done and so now understand what they are, through experience. I read about some of those things before I did them, but the reading about them, although interesting, gave me no real understanding. This applies to a whole variety of things. Some people I know do get stuck in the idea that living in a theoretical bubble is the way to understand anything and everything, but I don't think that is accurate. In fact I'm sure it isn't. You appear to have difficulty grasping this idea.
That sounds exactly like saying I need to look through faith-glasses. And no, you are incorrect. Provide evidence to show that my worldview is incorrect, and my worldview will change. I'm not interested in being right; I'm interested in finding the truth.If you insist on trying to make things fit into your own framework then that is the only thing you'll understand.
In point of fact, it could be argued that you do not know about the existence of your hand. You say you use your senses. Are your senses always perfectly reliable? Is it not possible that you could be mistaken?Clearly, no. I use my senses to check the existance of my hand. Belief in God is not a result of using my physical senses, to state the blatantly obvious. It's a combination of things that doesn't easily fit into a neat definition, so why try to? However you try and narrow it down you're always going to miss something out. Metaphor becomes inevitable and, as Robert Frost said, you're on shaky ground if you don't fully get your own metaphors (paraphrasing).
I think you are not understanding what I am saying.Whether or not God exists is not affected by my belief or lack thereof. If you think it's a simple matter then it's your way of thinking that is undeveloped, not the idea of belief.
Provide evidence to show that my worldview is incorrect, and my worldview will change.
Okay. Thanks.Correct/incorrect isn’t the issue. The number of things you can be correct or incorrect about in any definitive sense is pretty limited. That’s the issue, you seem to be thinking that your view in some way is ‘correct’, as opposed to internally coherent. I’m pointing out that it has its limits, and for that reason trying to apply your way of thinking to things it doesn’t jibe with raises the question of whether the subject is the issue, or the tool you are using.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?