261 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

The truth may sometimes suck, but it's usually logical.

This is, as any other such statement, an unfounded axiom.

What about all the other times you prayed and nothing happened?

"Not having gotten the result you wanted" =/= "nothing happened".

Not all people pray just for things they want. Many pray for things they need. It's not so much not getting a desired result but rather getting an answer or some sort of hint that God is actually out there and he has our back. But I guess for those who are readily provided for can't see how devastating an unanswered prayer can be. I heard this in a movie once, "People don't pray where God's hand is felt." I feel this is very true. People who live in much better conditions pray for things like getting an A their test or to find their lost wallet, ect. When they don't get what they want it's easy to shrug and go "Oh well. It's not in God's plan yet" or "Maybe I'm not praying hard enough." When people are dying because they're not getting what they NEED, how can you just sit there and and tell them to wait for God to provide for them? This is just a thought, but instead of praying for people, maybe Christians should actually help people. It doesn't need be as big as feeding the poor in third world countries. It can be as simple as just being a friend to someone who has no one to turn to. Who knows how many school shootings and teen suicides could've been prevented if people just acted a little more instead. Praying is a nice thought but it's powerless without human action. It's just talking into thin air.

Edited by SOAP, 01 August 2007 - 06:11 PM.

[LionHarted]

Please read the rest of my post. Telling us that faith in God is all we need in order to achieve "all things" implies that so long as the prayer is prayed with faith, the outcome should be in the favour of the one who prayed it.

It always is.

[wisp]

Please read the rest of my post. Telling us that faith in God is all we need in order to achieve "all things" implies that so long as the prayer is prayed with faith, the outcome should be in the favour of the one who prayed it.

It always is.

Now, rather than to sound like a broken record, I refer you to SOAP's post at the top of this page.

[LionHarted]

Now, rather than to sound like a broken record, I refer you to SOAP's post at the top of this page.

And I repeat: God always answers your prayers, in a way that favors you best. It's when people don't get the outcome they want that they fail to realize this. Since when have people known what they really need, though? Since when have people known what is best?

I agree very much with what SOAP said; that Christians should help more than they pray (and should pray more often). It is my firm belief that answers to prayer come in three forms:

1) miraculous (as in a miraculous cure for sickness);
2) circumstantial (as in a circumstance that, if approached properly, will get you what you want/need);
3) personal (prayer answered through another human being)

Most people tend to expect the first; that is why people tend to miss the answers. God doesn't really do much of that anymore. Especially now that Jesus came and told us to get off our asses and help each other for a change.

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 06:40 PM.

[SOAP]

Well at least there's some common ground for us to work on. I don't care so much for the first one anyways. I do believe strongly in third one, in that people--not just Christians but everyone--should actively cause the changes. If you're gonna pray, fine, but don't just sit there and wait, do something about it, especially when you're praying for someone else. Suddenly I'm reminded of the movie "Dear God."

I don't think any of that actually proves any power in prayer as people can change the world with or without prayer. It probably puts the person's feelings in the right place but beyond that I don't see anything.

I don't think it's true that people don't know what they need. Haven't you heard of Abraham Maslow?

Edited by SOAP, 01 August 2007 - 07:27 PM.

[LionHarted]

People know what they need to be content; very few people know what they need to be happy.

people can change the world with or without prayer.

Wouldn't know.
Never tried.

[SOAP]

People know what they need to be content; very few people know what they need to be happy.

I think that's where the Self Actualization needs kick in. But then again, I don't think true happiness exists without some sort of delusions of grandeur. Because ignorance is Bliss is so true.

Wouldn't know.
Never tried.

There are Christians who've changed the world for the better without prayer.
There are people in other religions who've changed the world for the better.
There are ATHIESTS and agnostics who have changed the world for the better.
Prayer isn't a necessary part of the equation. Christians only feel that it's necessary. But then again, of course they would find dialogue between their god and them so crucial...

[LionHarted]

In order to say prayer/God/etc. is not necessary, any/all of these would have to be eradicated to prove it.

Any person can fail to pray and still do good; there will still be others who are praying.

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 08:39 PM.

[SOAP]

Prayer/God/ect doesn't need to be eradicated in order to prove they're not necessary. The fact that people can do things all on their own without ANYONE praying proves it's not necessary. What needs to be proven is if prayer actually does cause things to happen when they do and not just random circumstances or people doing the right thing at the right time. Proof needs facts. All you have are beliefs. And excuses.

Edited by SOAP, 01 August 2007 - 09:04 PM.

[wisp]

Prayer/God/ect doesn't need to be eradicated in order to prove they're not necessary. The fact that people can do things all on their own without ANYONE praying proves it's not necessary. What needs to be proven is if prayer actually does cause things to happen when they do and not just random circumstances or people doing the right thing at the right time. Proof needs facts. All you have are beliefs. And excuses.

I would continue debating in this thread, but you're saying everything I would, so I'll just add my support behind this post. XD

[LionHarted]

Proof needs facts. All you have are beliefs. And excuses.

"Proof needs facts" is both a belief, and an excuse.

Prayer/God/ect doesn't need to be eradicated in order to prove they're not necessary.

Show me a world without prayer.
Show me a world without God.

If you can do either of these things, you win the argument outright.

[Reflectionist]

Proof needs facts. All you have are beliefs. And excuses.

"Proof needs facts" is both a belief, and an excuse.

No, actually proof does need facts, because you can't prove something based on a lie.

Although there is no scientific evidence involving anything that has to do with Religion, any religion. So using science (that is, to say, to try to find proof using facts, by testing) is impossible. A moot point. So don't even try to argue it.

And humans aren't all-knowing beings, so using the "God isn't proveable' as a Drumpf Card is a big no no. Just because we can't prove Gods existance doesn't automatically make it false. Remember: no one can disprove God's existance either. No one can either prove or disprove any strictly spiritual aspect of Religion. Those aspects that can be touched by history, somehow have been, and yet that doesn't count as proof because History isn't scientific.

This debate is a Circle.


As is every other debate on Christianity.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 09:26 PM.

[LionHarted]

No, actually proof does need facts, because you can't prove something based on a lie.

One could arrive at a perfectly right conclusion using perfectly wrong evidence in a perfectly useless way.

[SOAP]

"Proof needs facts" is both a belief, and an excuse.

How else to do you prove things?

Show me a world without prayer.
Show me a world without God.

If you can do either of these things, you win the argument outright.

Show me this world relies on either of those and you win the argument outright.

[Reflectionist]

No, actually proof does need facts, because you can't prove something based on a lie.

One could arrive at a perfectly right conclusion using perfectly wrong evidence in a perfectly useless way.

No. No one couldn't.

What you mean is one could arrive at a right conclusion using seemingly irrelevant information.

Such as the stereotype 'Hmm, that guy is black, so I think I might lock my doors at night'

Well, its obviously a good choice to lock your doors at night, period, but that has nothing to do with race.




And besides, what you're talking about isn't about proving something. Not to mention that it was irrelevant to the conversation in any way period.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 09:30 PM.

[wisp]

No, actually proof does need facts, because you can't prove something based on a lie.

One could arrive at a perfectly right conclusion using perfectly wrong evidence in a perfectly useless way.

Well then, that doesn't make it proof, does it? Just dumb luck.

[LionHarted]

How else to do you prove things?

How else do good things happen?

Show me this world relies on either of those and you win the argument outright.

That would require that I stop.

Well then, that doesn't make it proof, does it? Just dumb luck.

Like many scientific breakthroughs.

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 09:31 PM.

[SOAP]

Although there is no scientific evidence involving anything that has to do with Religion, any religion.

Not all facts need to scientific. Just something other than one's opinions.

[LionHarted]

Not all facts need to scientific. Just something other than one's opinions.

Circular argument, then.

You believe that my beliefs about the world are founded in opinion.
I believe that my beliefs about the world are founded in reality.

And probably vice-versa.

In any case, it's sort of a misnomer, because most Christians consider charity and good deeds in and of themselves a form of prayer.

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 09:35 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Although there is no scientific evidence involving anything that has to do with Religion, any religion.

Not all facts need to scientific. Just something other than one's opinions.

Well, it is a historical fact that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago and said the things he said and died the way He did. Was buried, where the body miraculously disappeared. That much has been proven.

The problem is that people say that that's an awful lot that can't be proven. But really, it can't be disproven, either. Consider, can you prove that Someone is God? Can you Prove that someone can resurrect themselves? Can you prove that God exists and has the power that the Bible says Jesus had? No.

So really, everything about Jesus that CAN be proven, has.


And SOAP, not a word of that was my own opinion.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 09:36 PM.

[wisp]

Well then, that doesn't make it proof, does it? Just dumb luck.

Like many scientific breakthroughs.

Yes, many scientific breakthroughs ARE discovered by accident. However, they are later tested and proven true. Science doesn't go around accepting an accidental discovery as fact until they're certain it holds true. I'm honestly not sure you understand what it is you seem to be arguing against.

[SOAP]

How else do good things happen?

Like I said, random coincidences, some of which make us feel "good" hence "good things" while others make us feel "bad" hence "bad things." Also, people getting off their asses and making things happen (good and bad). It has nothing to with the morality or faith of the person because good things also happen to bad people as do bad things happen to good people. Of course, Christianity has it's won explanations for that. It always does.

That would require that I stop.

It would require you to really question how true your beliefs are.

[LionHarted]

So it's all a matter of opinion.

It would require you to really question how true your beliefs are.

It's been the pattern that every time I do that, bad shit happens.

[Reflectionist]

It would require you to really question how true your beliefs are.

I agree. LionHarted is certainly confusing me with his arguments. They're irrelevant to the debate at hand. And even then, are illogical to the point of hilarity. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think this person knows what he's talking about, SOAP. Some of his posts seem to me like he's making stuff up to contradict what you're saying.

Please, I urge you to go back and read my posts. I hope that I'm bringing some good arguments.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 09:48 PM.

[LionHarted]

And even then, are illogical to the point of hilarity.

Debating the existence of God is illogical. There can intrinsically be no definite "no", as none of the claims of the negative are really testable.

Some of his posts seem to me like he's making stuff up to contradict what you're saying

Yes, let's accuse me of being illogical. :/

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 09:51 PM.

[Reflectionist]

And even then, are illogical to the point of hilarity.

Debating the existence of God is illogical. There can intrinsically be no definite "no", as none of the claims of the negative are really testable.

That's not what I was talking about, Skippy. As a matter of a fact, if you'd bothered to read my posts, you know that 4 to 6 posts before this one I said exactly that.

I was referring to such ludicrous statements as:

"One could arrive at a perfectly right conclusion using perfectly wrong evidence in a perfectly useless way."

Which, is illogical to the point of hilarity. Along with many other things you've said.

[wisp]

So it's all a matter of opinion.

It would require you to really question how true your beliefs are.

It's been the pattern that every time I do that, bad shit happens.

"Bad shit" eh? Perhaps it's all mental, like Friday the 13th mumbo jumbo. There's certainly nothing wrong in examining your beliefs good and hard in order to make sure you really do believe what you're preaching, and also to make sure you believe it for the right reasons.

For instance, going to church and purporting to believe in God just to save your ass from Hell is purely selfish and not at all a good reason to claim a belief system.

[SOAP]

Although there is no scientific evidence involving anything that has to do with Religion, any religion.

Not all facts need to scientific. Just something other than one's opinions.

Well, it is a historical fact that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago and said the things he said and died the way He did. Was buried, where the body miraculously disappeared. That much has been proven.

The problem is that people say that that's an awful lot that can't be proven. But really, it can't be disproven, either. Consider, can you prove that Someone is God? Can you Prove that someone can resurrect themselves? Can you prove that God exists and has the power that the Bible says Jesus had? No.

So really, everything about Jesus that CAN be proven, has.


And SOAP, not a word of that was my own opinion.

All you've proven is that that a lot of the Bible claims can't be proven either way which is the Agnostic approach and raelly doesn't prove anything. Hooray, you just preached to the choir.

What can be proven is people embellish things, especially if they're spread by word of mouth over a long period of time before ever being written down. And the fact that there's a period of four decades after Jesus' death before anything is written down about him sends up serious red flags. It may not prove much right away but it does at least prove we should question the validity of the Christian Faith. Christians can call into question the validity of other faiths and even science (which can be proven) but they can't question their own faith?

Edited by SOAP, 01 August 2007 - 09:55 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Accident. Please Disregard. Thanks

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 10:05 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Although there is no scientific evidence involving anything that has to do with Religion, any religion.

Not all facts need to scientific. Just something other than one's opinions.

Well, it is a historical fact that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago and said the things he said and died the way He did. Was buried, where the body miraculously disappeared. That much has been proven.

The problem is that people say that that's an awful lot that can't be proven. But really, it can't be disproven, either. Consider, can you prove that Someone is God? Can you Prove that someone can resurrect themselves? Can you prove that God exists and has the power that the Bible says Jesus had? No.

So really, everything about Jesus that CAN be proven, has.


And SOAP, not a word of that was my own opinion.

I als

All you've proven is that that a lot of the Bible claims can't be proven either way which is the Agnostic approach and raelly doesn't prove anything. Hooray, you just preached to the choir.

What can be proven is people embellish things, especially if they're spread by word of mouth over a long period of time before ever being written down. And the fact that there's a period of four decades after Jesus' death before anything is written down about him sends up serious red flags. It may not prove much right away but it does at least prove we should question the validity of the Christian Faith. Christians can call into question the validity of other faiths and even science (which can be proven) but they can't question their own faith?

Yes well, if you saw this it would send up red flags too.



But it's completely innocent.

Same with Christianity, no?