What is God's Role in the Current Pandemic?

[durangodawood]

I agree that a lot of this stuff is still an open question. But that is precisely my point--the fact that there are open questions doesn't in any way imply that people are just making things up as they go along.

You said you were frustrated that people had all sorts of different responses to things. That's not normally a feature of a religion that's too conservative.

The different conjectures seem to get fossilized into the institutions that form around them. So religion is even doubly frustrating to observe. Speculations getting baked into dogmatic recipes. Ugh.

But I dont hate the whole project at all. Big picture, I see humans slowly refining and reinventing the sort of God they want.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The different conjectures seem to get fossilized into the institutions that form around them. So religion is even doubly frustrating to observe. Speculations getting baked into dogmatic recipes. Ugh.

But I dont hate the whole project at all. Big picture, I see humans slowly refining and reinventing the sort of God they want.

Which ones are doing that? I'm not.

 

[durangodawood]

Which ones are doing that? I'm not.

"Big picture". I think for typical individuals the process moves slowly enough that they dont notice the change. The evolution of God on display in the Bible seems to have taken a couple thousand years of so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Big picture". I think for typical individuals the process moves slowly enough that they dont notice the change. The evolution of God on display in the Bible seems to have taken a couple thousand years of so.

Mmmmm.

Hmmmm.

well.......mmmmm.

Have you read the entire Old Testament? Because if you have, then I'd think we would agree that what we find therein much of the time among the various generations of folks in Israel is that Yahweh was not always the 'god' they wanted ... and they oscillated back and forth quite often, never deciding decisively if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob should be 'their god.' And even during those times they 'thought' that they could make do with Yahweh, then they'd listen to the Hannaniah's of the land rather than to the Jeremiah's.

So, I think I have to at least moderately disagree with you that biblical religion is as malleable as you've inferred, and I instead think that there's a lock-stop feature within it that really, ultimately, defines the trajectory of faith in Yahweh in such a way that there isn't a huge latitude for us to just conceptualize any and every philosophical 'readjustment' about God that we think we might want to innovate about "Him."

 

[RBPerry]

What is interesting to me is the number of people that turn to religion during tough times and then walk away when all seems well. After 911 church attendance went up, then returned to normal. We have always had wars, depressions, pandemics, natural disasters, and they will continue in the future.
I want to put my thoughts in the simplest terms, God has given man free will. What does that mean? We are free to do good or evil, or nothing at all, we can live our lives with no sense of a moral compass with little or no effect in many cases. When we are faced with terrible situations the fist thing one hears, "is where is God in all of this?" Pretty easy to figure out, He is letting us have our free will.
Israel decided they didn't want God directing their daily lives, the wanted a King, and free will, God gave it to them and we all have been reaping the consequences ever since. Sorry, don't have scientific proof, just my opinion.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Eh, I wouldn't really consider the interpretation of empirical data to be making it up as we go in any field. People just expect a higher degree of certainty and consensus in theology than they do anywhere else, for reasons that I don't quite understand.

Is there a such thing as a degree of certainty? Isn’t it that you either know or you don’t know... If your not 100% certain you don’t know and if your 100% certain you know. This is why the word belief must be used right?

 

[LightBearer]

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g20010608/Good-Health-for-All-Soon/

 

[Rodan6]

The different conjectures seem to get fossilized into the institutions that form around them. So religion is even doubly frustrating to observe. Speculations getting baked into dogmatic recipes. Ugh.

But I dont hate the whole project at all. Big picture, I see humans slowly refining and reinventing the sort of God they want.

It is enlightened understanding to observe the evolutionary change in mankind's view of God. To be sure, many are offended at the notion. But I would pose this question to you. How can you be certain that this evolving thought represents the "'God they want"? I would suggest that the "pursuit of the truth" is the real catalyst in this evolutionary change. To be sure, primitive people would not and could not respect a God of love.

 

[durangodawood]

It is enlightened understanding to observe the evolutionary change in mankind's view of God. To be sure, many are offended at the notion. But I would pose this question to you. How can you be certain that this evolving thought represents the "'God they want"? I would suggest that the "pursuit of the truth" is the real catalyst in this evolutionary change. To be sure, primitive people would not and could not respect a God of love.

Yes, from a faith point of view it looks like an ongoing pursuit of truth. From my pov it looks like a giant cultural/historical project to evolve and enshrine our highest ideals and provide a sort of stable cosmic setting. I could be wrong, of course.

 

[cvanwey]

As far as I'm concerned from having studied the New Testament for 34 years, it's all 'clear enough' for me, and it's my opinion that anyone who cares enough to want to dig in and understand it, can----especially what with the availability of the field of Hermeneutics as it presently exists now in the 21st century.

What if one deems oneself sufficiently 'studied-up', and finds conflict(s) abound? Enough so to render/deem the OT/NT a work of fiction/legend/other; with some sprinkling of 'truth' here and there; but not where it ultimately 'counts'?

Hence, you have two proclaimed opposing scholars, going head to head. One pro-Bible, one against. How might we sort out which one is correct? At the end of the day, one IS correct, and one IS misguided or mistaken. Yes, we are dealing with a true dichotomy... The Bible either speaks the truth, or it does not - (where it 'counts' that is)....

My point being, 'clear enough' can be a broad term, to say the very least....

 

[cvanwey]

Does god have a role in this? Is he just letting it happen or something else?

Additional question(s)....

What's MORE likely?

A. There exists no God, and stuff happens?
B. God exists, and He is watching it happen?

If it's the former, then we have hundreds/thousands/millions/billions here, and elsewhere, invoking rationalizations abound.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What if one deems oneself sufficiently 'studied-up', and finds conflict(s) abound? Enough so to render/deem the OT/NT a work of fiction/legend/other; with some sprinkling of 'truth' here and there; but not where it ultimately 'counts'?

Hence, you have two proclaimed opposing scholars, going head to head. One pro-Bible, one against. How might we sort out which one is correct? At the end of the day, one IS correct, and one IS misguided or mistaken. Yes, we are dealing with a true dichotomy... The Bible either speaks the truth, or it does not - (where it 'counts' that is)....

My point being, 'clear enough' can be a broad term, to say the very least....

Actually, there is no clear dichotomy and in such a case where there are two opposing scholars haggling over some oddball Christian doctrine, there are instead four outcomes, not two. Moreover, since it's my contention that because the Bible isn't comprehensive in nature, no one, no matter how ssssmaaaaaht, will ever really be able to know all that could be known about the Bible, God, or the Christian Faith, nor get it all 'correct.'

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, there is no clear dichotomy and in such a case where there are two opposing scholars haggling over some oddball Christian doctrine, there are instead four outcomes, not two. Moreover, since it's my contention that because the Bible isn't comprehensive in nature, no one, no matter how ssssmaaaaaht, will ever really be able to know all that could be known about the Bible, God, or the Christian Faith, nor get it all 'correct.'

Disagree. The fundamental dichotomy stands. The interested parties, whom study the Bible, resort to one of the two following ultimate conclusions. 1.) The Bible is true where it counts, or, 2.) likely isn't true where it counts.

And getting to the point, you stated: "it's all 'clear enough' for me, and it's my opinion that anyone who cares enough to want to dig in and understand it, can----especially what with the availability of the field of Hermeneutics as it presently exists now in the 21st century."

Seems as though you are implying there exists some cogent understanding. Please remember, the OP-er has asked: "So God cannot make sure that everyone can understand the most important question? How to be saved."

Since you claim to have 34 years under your belt, what is this clear message -- regarding salvation? And once rendered, can you do us all a favor, and please begin to set the rest of the believing world straight? Because, as I've experienced, I hardly get the same answer, even from the same attending church staff, when practically asking any question regarding interpretation of Scripture.... Let alone something as seemingly as important as criteria for salvation.

As stated prior, many times now... Seems as though God is ultimately the proprietor of confusion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Disagree. The fundamental dichotomy stands. The interested parties, whom study the Bible, resort to one of the two following ultimate conclusions. 1.) The Bible is true where it counts, or, 2.) likely isn't true where it counts.

No, the dichtomy does not stand. Why? Because you're positing a situation in which we don't know that it is the case that EITHER position of the two parties you're hypothetically talking about actually are fully correct. I thoroughly reject your premise that there ever is such a situation to be referenced in our shared REALITY where religion is concerned. This isn't to say, however, that your hypothesis isn't ever the case in other human arguments outside of religious ones.

And getting to the point, you stated: "it's all 'clear enough' for me, and it's my opinion that anyone who cares enough to want to dig in and understand it, can----especially what with the availability of the field of Hermeneutics as it presently exists now in the 21st century."

Right. I'm simply saying that it's clear enough for me. This isn't to say that Christianity, all by itself, will automatically and somehow be 'clear enough' for anyone else. No, my epistemic understanding about human mental reality doesn't jive with that view of Realism.

Seems as though you are implying there exists some cogent understanding. Please remember, the OP-er has asked: "So God cannot make sure that everyone can understand the most important question? How to be saved."

Yes, but not in and through the epistemic ways and byways that you seem to imply and/or assume must underlie everyone's mind and outlook on life. I do not share those assumptions, assumptions which you skeptics never challenge or allow to be challenged.

Since you claim to have 34 years under your belt, what is this clear message -- regarding salvation? And once rendered, can you do us all a favor, and please begin to set the rest of the believing world straight? Because, as I've experienced, I hardly get the same answer, even from the same attending church staff, when practically asking any question regarding interpretation of Scripture.... Let alone something as seemingly as important as criteria for salvation.

As stated prior, many times now... Seems as though God is ultimately the proprietor of confusion.

I think you've misinterpreted my purposes here, cvanwey ... and I'm not sure how many times I have to keep repeating myself. It's almost like you skeptics have amnesia, but whether it's selective amnesia or not remains to be seen.

I've NEVER claimed a position of "I've got the right answers and interpretations about the Bible....so follow me everyone!" No, as an Existentialist and one who borrows the Philosophical Hermeneutics praxis, I'm here to 'test' epistemic positions and to vet them out and, if needed, pare them away, burn them away and tear them down---not to build them up (again, epistemologically speaking, that is!)

No, the so-called "proving" I leave to the rest of you, on all sides, to 'do.' I'm just here as a kind of theological referee. Are you starting to get the picture yet after all this time? I'm starting to wonder when you'll finally 'interpret' ME correctly, let alone something like a random religious book.

It's almost like everyone expects me to be the usual Foundationalist/Evidentialist Superman with the red cape and all, and everyone sees that I do have a red cape from somewhere behind me. But then when I turn around, everyone is epistemically confused about "what I'm trying to say" because what and who I actually am sounds and looks instead .... rather "Strange" to them; and they dare to tell me, "Oh, you're not Superman!" And I say, again, and again, "I never claimed to be Superman." Hence, I'm a Critical Realist, not a Direct Realist, especially when it comes to matters of religion. I'm not a Foundationalist either. Nor, when it comes to religion, am I REALLY of any particular epistemic view; hence, this is why I state that I'm an Existentialist---but then everyone scratches their heads, and I at that point always say, "Engage!"

But, uhhhhhhhhhhh, what does THAT mean?

***********************************************************

[By the way, I know that the crisis is taking its toll right now on everyone, and being that you've said you work in the medical field, please know that I do hope and pray for your well-being, despite the issues of difference over religion we both have respectively.]

 

[cvanwey]

Before I begin, I would like to say... I'm glad you did not keep to your word, and 'ride off into the theoretical sunset.' I rather enjoy our time together. Moving forward.

No, the dichtomy does not stand. Why? Because you're positing a situation in which we don't know that it is the case that EITHER position of the two parties you're hypothetically talking about actually are fully correct. I thoroughly reject your premise that there ever is such a situation to be referenced in our shared REALITY where religion is concerned. This isn't to say, however, that your hypothesis isn't ever the case in other human arguments outside of religious ones.

Time for a little 'tuff love' Philo...

Yes, the dichotomy looks to present.

A. Christian Biblical scholars
B. non-Christian Biblical scholars

Option B. presents all of the following - on the fence, whom flat out reject the assertions/premises of the supernatural or claimed divinity, other religions, or other... You either claim you are a Christian, or you are not currently a Christian. Christian or non-Christian.

A seeker is not a Christian. A doubter is not a Christian. A Muslim is not a Christian. A Hindu is not a Christian. etc......

On a side note...

What is that old saying about Harvard Divinity School? 'You have to be an atheist to attend?'

An Atheist’s Prayer

Right. I'm simply saying that it's clear enough for me. This isn't to say that Christianity, all by itself, will automatically and somehow be 'clear enough' for anyone else. No, my epistemic understanding about human mental reality doesn't jive with that view of Realism.

It's clear enough for you of the 'main message?' Meaning, there exists enough evidence to support the assertion that God came down to earth in human form, sacrificed Himself to Himself, to atone/account for and rid mankind from the presented loophole - as long as you believe and accept it?

Do tell?

And no, I'm afraid 'faith' falls short. Even if you quote 'Lessing's ditch' again.

Yes, but not in and through the epistemic ways and byways that you seem to imply and/or assume must underlie everyone's mind and outlook on life. I do not share those assumptions, assumptions which you skeptics never challenge or allow to be challenged.

You did not [actually] address his question; even when I re-presented it. You instead decided to make a generalization. Please allow me to refresh your memory.

"So God cannot make sure that everyone can understand the most important question? How to be saved."

I think you've misinterpreted my purposes here, cvanwey ... and I'm not sure how many times I have to keep repeating myself. It's almost like you skeptics have amnesia, but whether it's selective amnesia or not remains to be seen.

I've NEVER claimed a position of "I've got the right answers and interpretations about the Bible....so follow me everyone!" No, as an Existentialist and one who borrows the Philosophical Hermeneutics praxis, I'm here to 'test' epistemic positions and to vet them out and, if needed, pare them away, burn them away and tear them down---not to build them up (again, epistemologically speaking, that is!)

No, the so-called "proving" I leave to the rest of you, on all sides, to 'do.' I'm just here as a kind of theological referee. Are you starting to get the picture yet after all this time? I'm starting to wonder when you'll finally 'interpret' ME correctly, let alone something like a random religious book.

It's almost like everyone expects me to be the usual Foundationalist/Evidentialist Superman with the red cape and all, and everyone sees that I do have a red cape from somewhere behind me. But then when I turn around, everyone is epistemically confused about "what I'm trying to say" because what and who I actually am sounds and looks instead .... rather "Strange" to them; and they dare to tell me, "Oh, you're not Superman!" And I say, again, and again, "I never claimed to be Superman." Hence, I'm a Critical Realist, not a Direct Realist, especially when it comes to matters of religion. I'm not a Foundationalist either. Nor, when it comes to religion, am I REALLY of any particular epistemic view; hence, this is why I state that I'm an Existentialist---but then everyone scratches their heads, and I at that point always say, "Engage!"

But, uhhhhhhhhhhh, what does THAT mean?

Please see your own response above, in bold/red.

Actions speak louder than words. Change your 'avatar' to state something other than 'Christian', and your response above will then more align accordingly.

***********************************************************

[By the way, I know that the crisis is taking its toll right now on everyone, and being that you've said you work in the medical field, please know that I do hope and pray for your well-being, despite the issues of difference over religion we both have respectively.]

Thank you. But your answer is quite confusing. It's almost as if you are implying that you can change God's will?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Before I begin, I would like to say... I'm glad you did not keep to your word, and 'ride off into the theoretical sunset.' I rather enjoy our time together. Moving forward.

... you're right about one thing: I shouldn't have given into the temptation of you're having posed a question, i.e. the one you provided up in post #70.

Time for a little 'tuff love' Philo...

Yes, the dichotomy looks to present.

A. Christian Biblical scholars
B. non-Christian Biblical scholars

Option B. presents all of the following - on the fence, whom flat out reject the assertions/premises of the supernatural or claimed divinity, other religions, or other... You either claim you are a Christian, or you are not currently a Christian. Christian or non-Christian.

A seeker is not a Christian. A doubter is not a Christian. A Muslim is not a Christian. A Hindu is not a Christian. etc......

And you've taken into account ALL epistemic complexities, complications and conundrums which exist within the human race and among each interlocutor, right? Wow. You must be a god, cvanway.

On a side note...

What is that old saying about Harvard Divinity School? 'You have to be an atheist to attend?'

An Atheist’s Prayer

That's more like a 'sidetrack rather than a side note ...

It's clear enough for you of the 'main message?' Meaning, there exists enough evidence to support the assertion that God came down to earth in human form, sacrificed Himself to Himself, to atone/account for and rid mankind from the presented loophole - as long as you believe and accept it?

Do tell?

And no, I'm afraid 'faith' falls short. Even if you quote 'Lessing's ditch' again.

No, I think you've placed the cart before the horse, as is your usual fashion.

You did not [actually] address his question; even when I re-presented it. You instead decided to make a generalization. Please allow me to refresh your memory.

"So God cannot make sure that everyone can understand the most important question? How to be saved."

Please see your own response above, in bold/red.

Actions speak louder than words. Change your 'avatar' to state something other than 'Christian', and your response above will then more align accordingly.

With my advocating Existentialism, Philosophical Hermeneutics and an ongoing criticism of human epistemological projects, you see why these last few comments of yours fail, don't you? If I were to affirm that you are correct, then I'd also have to deny that the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard were, in some sense or another, truly Christian. Of course, I'd probably have to do the same with the Apostle Paul. And guess what? I'm going to let you in on a little secret..... no, no! Come closer and I'll whisper it in your ear.

***********************************************************

Thank you. But your answer is quite confusing. It's almost as if you are implying that you can change God's will?

No, I had more in mind that I'm praying that whatever it is that the Lord has decided about you and how He'll deal with you, that He'd do it sooner. And I'm praying that He reveals His mercy to you in the long run.

 

[cvanwey]

... you're right about one thing: I shouldn't have given into the temptation of you're having posed a question, i.e. the one you provided up in post #70.

No. I think, rather, that you regret answering, as the basic logic has now been plainly exposed. See below. Your 'gotcha' moment merely backfired.

And you've taken into account ALL epistemic complexities, complications and conundrums which exist within the human race and among each interlocutor, right? Wow. You must be a god, cvanway.

If a god does exist, I sincerely doubt it would require that of a god's intelligence to point out basic logic. In this case, that a dichotomy results in - (A, and not A).

You either believe Jesus IS God and choose to follow, or, something else / not.

That's more like a 'sidetrack rather than a side note ...

I figured I'd take a page from 'your book'. Isn't it frustrating to sift and weed through the distractions? Maybe now you can stop 'name dropping', start answering the direct questions placed in front of you, etc...? Maybe? Remains to be seen...

No, I think you've placed the cart before the horse, as is your usual fashion.

Until you decide to change your 'avatar', I stand firm on my statement Seems logical to assume that the term "Christian' implies belief that Jesus is God, and sacrificed Himself; and is not just some preacher claiming to be.... Correct me if I'm wrong, of course

Case and point

With my advocating Existentialism, Philosophical Hermeneutics and an ongoing criticism of human epistemological projects, you see why these last few comments of yours fail, don't you? If I were to affirm that you are correct, then I'd also have to deny that the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard were, in some sense or another, truly Christian. Of course, I'd probably have to do the same with the Apostle Paul. And guess what? I'm going to let you in on a little secret..... no, no! Come closer and I'll whisper it in your ear.

Please see above.

No, I had more in mind that I'm praying that whatever it is that the Lord has decided about you and how He'll deal with you, that He'd do it sooner. And I'm praying that He reveals His mercy to you in the long run.

So when you stated...

"I know that the crisis is taking its toll right now on everyone, and being that you've said you work in the medical field, please know that I do hope and pray for your well-being."

You were not, at all, praying that I remain virus free? Interesting...?

I retract my prior 'thank you' then.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. I think, rather, that you regret answering, as the basic logic has now been plainly exposed. See below. Your 'gotcha' moment merely backfired.



If a god does exist, I sincerely doubt it would require that of a god's intelligence to point out basic logic. In this case, that a dichotomy results in - (A, and not A).

You either believe Jesus IS God and choose to follow, or, something else / not.



I figured I'd take a page from 'your book'. Isn't it frustrating to sift and weed through the distractions? Maybe now you can stop 'name dropping', start answering the direct questions placed in front of you, etc...? Maybe? Remains to be seen...


Until you decide to change your 'avatar', I stand firm on my statement Seems logical to assume that the term "Christian' implies belief that Jesus is God, and sacrificed Himself; and is not just some preacher claiming to be.... Correct me if I'm wrong, of course



Case and point




Please see above.



So when you stated...

"I know that the crisis is taking its toll right now on everyone, and being that you've said you work in the medical field, please know that I do hope and pray for your well-being."

You were not, at all, praying that I remain virus free? Interesting...?

I retract my prior 'thank you' then.

Virus free? Who says I haven't? But whether I do for both you and for me, I'm personally under NO assumptions that the Lord will allow me or you to remain virus free. I'm definitely not under the impression that prayer is going to make me immune to all that is going on, right now, existentially ...

... so unlike you, I'm preparing my mind for what might be a less than favorable outcome. And I'll continue to assert that Jesus is Lord and Savior, come what may!

 

[cvanwey]

Okay, I'll just assume, until further notice, you have conceded practically the entire argument; due to your lack in further response.

Moving forward, on to [your] notion on the 'purpose' of prayer... Let me get this straight once and for all... And to do this, I can only dissect your response.

Virus free? Who says I haven't?

You basically did. Pay careful attention to what you stated prior. Case/point --> "No, I had more in mind that I'm praying that whatever it is that the Lord has decided about you and how He'll deal with you, that He'd do it sooner."

1. So, in regards to the virus specifically, are you praying that if He is going to allow me to contract the virus, you are praying He will do it sooner? I'm assuming not. Hence, your response does not follow logically.

2. And further still, if you now admit you do implement intercessory prayer, then you must also admit your are requesting God to change His will.

So which illogical path do you choose to venture upon?

A. You actually weren't praying for me to be virus free, because you know God does not change His will? Which begs the question, what's the point of prayer?
B. You were instead merely praying that God would bestow His presence upon me, which is still a blaring contradiction, as you are still admitting that you are requesting that God changes His will, via intercessory prayer?

But whether I do for both you and for me, I'm personally under NO assumptions that the Lord will allow me or you to remain virus free.

A. If you cannot (ever) change God's will, what is the point of prayer?
B. If you can (ever) change God's will, then is He really omniscient?

I'm definitely not under the impression that prayer is going to make me immune to all that is going on, right now, existentially ...

Does God ever answer petitionary/intercessory prayers, or not? Either way, you have a conflict flopped into your lap.

... so unlike you, I'm preparing my mind for what might be a less than favorable outcome. And I'll continue to assert that Jesus is Lord and Savior, come what may!

Um, you presume too much. I too expect an unfavorable outcome, if the 'objective' is to preserve/spare humans.

But you are tripping all over yourself, when you mention prayer, in any capacity. So until you start making sense, I will continue to challenge your blank assertions about prayer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, I'll just assume, until further notice, you have conceded practically the entire argument; due to your lack in further response.

Well, that is one HUGE difference between you and me. I NEVER assume that just because someone else discontinues a discussion with me that they're conceding anything. Silence isn't Golden, and neither is it ever really a concession to anything, ever.

I'm done today with your goading. Remember back when you first started on CF? I referenced a book, one that I think I've in fact referenced to you more than once. If you can't 'count' THAT as my answer, and if you simply don't do so because you don't want to engage in it, then THAT is on you, not me.

You've been given multiple answers from me multiple times, most of which you never engage because of your own amateurish philosophical predilections that you think you can hide behind, predilections that typically revolve around your own hobby of collecting and distributing what you think are various contradictions, dilemmas, inconsistencies and other epistemic paraphernalia which you think you've found in either the Bible or in various Christian's assertions, paraphernalia that Sarcastic Skeptics love to then use as ammo in just about any pseudo-argument they contrive from within the confines of their spiritually fractured minds.

So, until you're ready to engage ENTIRE books of material with me and discuss them, in detail, line by line, sentence by sentence, concept by concept, then back off, and just don't ask me any more questions.

Last thing: when I said "I'm preparing my mind for what might be a less than favorable outcome," I wasn't talking about what may happen or not happen to anyone else. I was referring to the fact that, in the specific context of the viral crisis, I don't expect any special treatment for myself from the Lord....which basically falls in line what my own understanding about the 'purpose' of prayer, one which I've been stating to you ever since you first signed up on CF almost two years ago, but which you've refused to engage, let alone heed.

So be it! Live long and prosper, prayer or no prayer!

And since everyone here seems to love to quote scripture, whether in context or out of context, then I'll just leave you with this little bit that I'm sure you'll find another fault-line in.... so have at it!

**********************************************************

1 John 5:15-17 New International Version (NIV)

15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.