Prayer?

[Lionel20]

I haven't visited the site in awhile. I'm sure this topic has been discussed over and over. But I want to engage, re-engage the forum on the issue of prayer in the traditional sense.

I believe in prayer in a sense of communicating with God - the eternal force from which the fundamental forces of the universe derived.

But I struggle to understand the prayer in the traditional ecclesiastical sense. Is it redundant to pray as a loved one is being admitted into the hospital for surgery 'God guide the Surgeons hands. Or give my loved one a speedy recovery'. Does the employ a God who would otherwise be idle? Or what about the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6, "[May] God's will be on earth as it is in heaven?". What does this mean? And is this possible?

What about "I plead the blood of Jesus over my children's room tonight", does that ensure their safety? If Christians really believe that these prayers offer divine protection why do they purchase alarm systems? Why are many US Christians supportive of a Political Party that obsesses over the 2nd Amendment? The Catholic church in particular, from at least 300-400 AD has launched countless military campaigns in the name of Jesus - which seems a contradiction.

Does anyone really believe in conventional prayer?

[Clownboat]

Lol. Your claim was that, in the Bible, there were no witnesses to Jesus being distressed and kneeling on the ground. I posted scriptures showing the contrary. I'm just saying what the Bible says. I'm not necessarily saying it is proof that that is what happened.

And there were no witnesses. Only in Mark do we hear of a naked man running away and he appears after Judas and the crowd arrive. He has nothing to do with the previous unwitnessed scene.

It looks as though the writers make up what they want and supply words where they choose. It leads one to suppose the whole is fictional. Do ears just get stuck back on again?

Just because this one account was mentioned in just one gospel, doesn't make it untrue.

Wait a minute. I think we need to establish that any of the gospels are true before you can use such reasoning.

For starters:
- Who wrote the gospels and when?
(Do 'I' know what a rhetorical question is?)

It is not clear who exactly wrote what we having in the Bible today

Agreed, which is why you cannot say "Just because this one account was mentioned in just one gospel, doesn't make it untrue". It could be in all of the gospels, and that still doesn't make it true.

but it is based on what Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote originally.

Please provide evidence that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote any of the gospels. You just got done saying that who wrote what is not clear.

That is what is generally accepted.

Only in Christian circles. Ask those without a dog in the fight.

Mark is said to have been the earliest gospel and John the latest.

Agreed about Mark.
More about Mark, the first gospel:
- no account of the virgin birth of Jesus"or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Marks Gospel at all"and Jesus is called a son of Mary,
- Like the other three Gospels Mark recounts the visit of Mary Magdalene and her companions to the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning. Upon arriving they find the blocking stone at the entrance of the tomb removed and a young man, not an angel tells them that Jesus is going before them to Galilee. And there the gospel ends.
- Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or sightings of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.
- This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture"but it is patently bogus.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... ifference/

The other gospel writers may have thought it wasn't important enough to include in. John wouldn't have. He was more mystical and did not mind much about history.

You talk as if you know who wrote the gospels. How did you acquire such knowledge? You act as if you were a contemporary. How old are you!

Do I have to be a contemporary to have an indication who wrote the gospels?

Nope, now how do you know that John was more mystical and that he did not mind much about history? Those two claims make it sound like you knew the men.

Were you there when Plato wrote his philosophies?

Please show where I commented on Plato. Now, if you were to hear me make claims about Plato's personality, would you not wonder how I acquired such knowledge?

We have to have a yardstick to go by. We need to ask if the gospels based from the namesakes, then who else could have written them?

This question does not need to be asked, we already know that we have no idea who penned any of the gospels. If you have come across such knowledge, please share it.

[Clownboat]

It would sure be nice if you could offer something other than your religious holy book to suggest that your religious holy book is true.

I'm now as convinced of what you say as you would be if a Muslim quoted from the Qu'ran to you.


Have you ever witnessed a glorified body outside of stories in your religious promotional material? Any reason we should consider those words in your holy book as describing reality and not Paul just creating a religion?

No Christian claims that they need to see a glorified body to believe.

I never said they did, I asked: Have you ever witnessed a glorified body outside of stories in your religious promotional material?

If we believe the Holy Spirit exists, then the words in the gospels have been confirmed.

My kids believe in the Tooth Fairy, but it is still me that puts the money under their pillow. Believing does not make things real, so Holy Spirit it up.

It could not have been Paul making a religion because the gospels did not originate with him.

I never claimed that Paul wrote the gospels. I do argue, but not in this thread that Paul was out to start a church though.

You can communicate with spirits.

I believe this statement is false. Please provide evidence that this claim is true.

In a debate, my statement would not be valid. Don't try it but there are many ways to communicate with spirits like seances and ouija boards. My family has done it.

I don't believe your empty, un-evidenced claims Claire. Communicating with spirits has not been shown to be real, however, people that claim to speak to spirits have been shown to be real frauds. I have tried to use an Ouija board, nothing happened and we certainly didn't speak with any spirits.

Can you not show that anything you say here is true? If not, do you not wonder why?

Now I remember, you have faith, that thing that we know leads to false religious beliefs.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 62 by Clownboat]


"Now I remember, you have faith, that thing that we know leads to false religious beliefs."

We can not live without faith.

If I did not have faith that the sun will rise in the morning
I'd never go to sleep

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 62 by Clownboat]


"Now I remember, you have faith, that thing that we know leads to false religious beliefs."

We can not live without faith.

If I did not have faith that the sun will rise in the morning
I'd never go to sleep

I however, understand why the sun does what it does. No faith is required. I even have 39 years of evidence that the sun 'rises' every single morning.

If I was able to explain to you why the sun 'rises', would such understanding not replace this faith you feel you need in order to fall asleep?

Do you have evidence for your god like I do for the sun 'rising'?
Perhaps you really don't have faith that the sun will 'rise' tomorrow. Perhaps you already understand the mechanism in place and you know not only that it will 'rise', but why it will 'rise'.

Perhaps you were not being honest that you require faith in order to fall asleep for fear of no sun 'rising' in the morning?

[OnceConvinced]

I for one tend to have faith that the sun will rise in the morning, but am also aware that one day that might not happen. There are no guarantees.

I actually wonder about those ancient people who worshipped Ra, the sun god. Did they look up each morning and marvel that Ra was watching over them again this morning? Did one day they come to the conclusion that this great big ball of light wasn't actually a god and that the blessings (and curses) they attributed to it came from natural causes? Perhaps they continued to exhibit their faith, continuing to believe Ra was looking over them until the day they died?

[Monta]

I for one tend to have faith that the sun will rise in the morning, but am also aware that one day that might not happen. There are no guarantees.

I actually wonder about those ancient people who worshipped Ra, the sun god. Did they look up each morning and marvel that Ra was watching over them again this morning? Did one day they come to the conclusion that this great big ball of light wasn't actually a god and that the blessings (and curses) they attributed to it came from natural causes? Perhaps they continued to exhibit their faith, continuing to believe Ra was looking over them until the day they died?

And good Lord whould have understood that it was their sincere belieef.

it was their intuition of a greater reality, that God appears above the heavens as the great Light, like the Sun.