Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[elliotfc]

I won't quibble about the interpretation of the bible, but what I think is important is the common believer's understanding of it. I don't think most Christians share that interpretation.

Sooooooo............you believe that most Christians think that *anything* they ask of God, God will do, no caveats or loopholes or exceptions?

But if god only grants prayers that are already his will, it shouldn't matter what the number is.

I'm talking about *faithfulness* and not results. It is better for 1000 people to be faithful (to pray) than for 1 person to pray.

If nobody prays that chickens gain the ability to fly, but god wants it to happen, it's going to happen.

I guess so, the exceptions would be free will related. I think God wants us all to accept him, but that doesn't mean all of us will accept him.

Also, the reason that chickens can't fly is because people eat too many chicken wings.

If all of humanity prays for or against chicken flight, it won't affect god's will, so it won't affect the chickens. If it doesn't matter what the number is, it doesn't matter whether you pray or not.

Agreed.

As to the prayer chains, I cite them only as an example that the average Christian that I encounter apparently believes that it is possible to change god's will through prayer, and the more people praying, the better.

We believe that we are *free* to pray. We also believe that God is *free* to respond to our prayers or deal with prayers anyway he wants to.

Is it possible that God would not...for example...cure a brain cancer unless someone prayed for it? Sure. Why not? If God could *not* be influenced by our prayers or requests, that would be an exceptionally non-personal relationship, don't you think?

We know that people asked Jesus to do things (give them sight, etc.), and being asked, he did it. There you go. We believe that by knowing Jesus we can also know the nature of God.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

ceo said "demoninations claim" and you provide bible verse in response.

An honest response would have been to provide actual, official, claims of denominations.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

You still don't understand.

Firstly, an omnipotent and morally good is impossible, for reasons that have been repeated incessantly on this forum.

So the equation is...

omnipotent and morally good god is impossible...because of reasons that have been repeated incessantly on this forum.

That reasons are repeated incessantly on this forum is a fact, I'll give you that. That said, that fact doesn't prove anything you'd like, just because of incessant repeating.

Secondly, the Christian god allegedly grants all prayers made in Jesus's name. That's an easily testable claim. In Jesus's name I pray for my hair to turn into vipers, and for the snakes to bite my nose.

Vipers?

I think most Christians would agree that someone who rejects Christ couldn't really pray in Christ's name.

Also, Jesus commands us to not put him to the test.

The Christian god also allegedly appears as a burning bush, turn women into salt, and floods the planet, none of which has ever happend. All claims made about the Christian god in the Bible are either untestable, or false.

I agree that they aren't testable. You're contradicting yourself also...you say "none of which has ever happened"...and in the next sentence you decide to allow for an either/or.

A different, uncaring, cruel, or incompetent god may exist, but such a god does not conform to the claims made about the Christian god.

Or, the Christian god does exist but you decide that it is uncaring/cruel/incompetent while others disagree.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

ceo said "demoninations claim" and you provide bible verse in response.

I am the one who intially claimed that the Bible says all prayers will be granted. Ceo moved the goal posts.

If Christians choose to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe in, because the vast majority of it is clearly nonsense, then they are one step closer to rejecting that fiction entirely.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So the equation is...

omnipotent and morally good god is impossible...because of reasons that have been repeated incessantly on this forum.

Fine, I'll sum up.

Evil Exists. God is good. God is omnipotent.

One of the above must be false.

I think most Christians would agree that someone who rejects Christ couldn't really pray in Christ's name.

Fine, YOU pray that my hair turn into snakes.

Also, Jesus commands us to not put him to the test.

Ok, pray for my dog's cancer to be cured. She's a helpless, sick and very old animal. It would be a good and noble thing to cure her. Pray for it.

I agree that they aren't testable. You're contradicting yourself also...you say "none of which has ever happened"...and in the next sentence you decide to allow for an either/or.

Reading. Try it.

The Christian god does not exist. A DIFFERENT god might.

 

[Freethinker]

Originally by who exactly?

I was referring to my original post's postulated god only. Indirectly to Christians' postulated "god who gives us anything we pray for" and the fact that he doesn't exist as postulated because we are pretty sure he doesn't do that. Existence of another god (or our understanding of god), with a different prayer answering policy is neither proven nor disproven by this.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I was referring only to my original post's postulated god only. Indirectly to Christians' postulated "god who gives us anything we pray for" and the fact that he doesn't exist as postulated because we are pretty sure he doesn't do that. Existence of another god (or our understanding of god), with a different prayer answering policy is neither proven nor disproven by this.

Wow, Freethinker. Will you be my ghostwriter? The pay's not so good, but the hours are flexible.

 

[Freethinker]

Sooooooo............you believe that most Christians think that *anything* they ask of God, God will do, no caveats or loopholes or exceptions?

Not most, many. When prayer fails it is either because they aren't faithful enough, or "The Lord works in mysterious ways".

I'm talking about *faithfulness* and not results. It is better for 1000 people to be faithful (to pray) than for 1 person to pray.

But the original post was talking about prayers being granted, so results are the issue here.

Also, the reason that chickens can't fly is because people eat too many chicken wings.

But think how much bigger their wings would be if they could fly!

We know that people asked Jesus to do things (give them sight, etc.), and being asked, he did it. There you go. We believe that by knowing Jesus we can also know the nature of God.
-Elliot

We don't know that. We have unsubstantiated texts which say he did, but those same texts are also said to be sometimes literal and sometimes figurative or metaphorical.

 

[elliotfc]

I am the one who intially claimed that the Bible says all prayers will be granted. Ceo moved the goal posts.

If Christians choose to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe in, because the vast majority of it is clearly nonsense, then they are one step closer to rejecting that fiction entirely.

You sound annoyed.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Fine, I'll sum up.

Evil Exists. God is good. God is omnipotent.

One of the above must be false.

If you assume that, in order to be good, and omnipotent God must not allow evil to exist, I agree that one of the above must be false.

Fine, YOU pray that my hair turn into snakes.

Why, so you could turn people who look at you into stone? I don't care to indulge your desire to be Medusa, pass.

Ok, pray for my dog's cancer to be cured. She's a helpless, sick and very old animal. It would be a good and noble thing to cure her. Pray for it.

OK. What's yer dog's name?

The Christian god does not exist. A DIFFERENT god might.

I don't consider your dogmatic assertions on the nature of the Christian god to be correct.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I was referring to my original post's postulated god only. Indirectly to Christians' postulated "god who gives us anything we pray for" and the fact that he doesn't exist as postulated because we are pretty sure he doesn't do that. Existence of another god (or our understanding of god), with a different prayer answering policy is neither proven nor disproven by this.

I don't think that very many Christians actually do postulate that god gives us anything we pray for. I'm sure there are some who do, and they probably have websites even.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If you assume that, in order to be good, and omnipotent God must not allow evil to exist, I agree that one of the above must be false.

Thank you. God is false.

OK. What's yer dog's name?

According to the Bible, this information is not required.

I don't consider your dogmatic assertions on the nature of the Christian god to be correct.

-Elliot

It's not dogmatic, it's a logical deduction. If the claims made about X are all false or untestable, X cannot be said to exist.

 

[elliotfc]

Not most, many. When prayer fails it is either because they aren't faithful enough, or "The Lord works in mysterious ways".

Meaning, then, that God will not do anything that is asked for.

I've heard other responses like, "well, God wills that we will all die eventually", things like that.

-Elliot

 

[Wheezebucket]

Once, as a child, God told me I couldn't have a Crash Test Dummy action figure because they weren't cool enough, and instead directed me to the Ghostbusters toys. My life was forever changed. Thank you, oh wise and mighty lord.

When I got home, all my GI Joes were laying out in the yard, covered in sores.

I think this proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that God hates certain action figures more than others. So sayeth Slimer, so sayeth the Lord!

 

[ceo_esq]

I am the one who intially claimed that the Bible says all prayers will be granted. Ceo moved the goal posts.

Whoa. Don't blame shortcomings in your argumentation on me. In the post to which I was responding, you said simply (and with somewhat weasely phrasing) that "It is claimed" that the Christian God fulfills all prayers. Now quite naturally by "Christian God" I took you to mean God as proposed in accordance with the understanding of all or perhaps most or many Christian denominations. It turns out you meant God in accordance with your personal interpretation of those Bible texts. Now, Christianity as we know it is obviously not the only, nor even the most logical, religion that the Bible could have spawned. Other ways of reading the same Bible could might conceivably have given rise to radically different religions. Yet if we're going to talk about the God of Christianity I think we must take him as we find him in the beliefs of actual Christians according to their interpretation. No one's going to find it particularly significant that we can disprove a so-called "Christian God" with properties hypothesized by you but by hardly any actual Christians.

Anyway, your interpretation here is suspect. One of the canons of textual construction states that interpretations tending to yield an evident absurdity should generally be avoided where possible. The notion of a God who quite literally grants every petitionary prayer of every person is so obviously problematic (what if two mutually contradictory states of affairs are prayed for?) that it's sensible to presume that a more nuanced interpretation of those texts most closely reflects their intent. Even if that weren't the case, however, it wouldn't matter to my point above.

 

[elliotfc]

Anyway, your interpretation here is suspect. One of the canons of textual construction states that interpretations tending to yield an evident absurdity should generally be avoided where possible. The notion of a God who quite literally grants every petitionary prayer of every person is so obviously problematic (what if two mutually contradictory states of affairs are prayed for?) that it's sensible to presume that a more nuanced interpretation of those texts most closely reflects their intent. Even if that weren't the case, however, it wouldn't matter to my point above.

Also, it leaves open the possibility of absolutely *obliterating* all existing dogmas.

What if someone prays that Jesus become Satan?

What if we pray that we never die or experience suffering?

What if we pray that free will be eliminated?

Christians are accused of being unreasonable. Quite often. So, here it *can be understood* that "ask in my name and you shall receive" is accepted, by Christians, in a reasonable way, in spite of the insistence that Christians understand the formula in the way you think ought.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Anyway, your interpretation here is suspect. One of the canons of textual construction states that interpretations tending to yield an evident absurdity should generally be avoided where possible.

How very convient for you to just ignore all the silliest parts of the Bible whenever it suits you, yet still claim that it's a Holy Book we should buid our lives around. If we are supposed to use our judgement anyway to disregard the stupid parts, why bother with the Bible at all? What do Christians base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book?

 

[ceo_esq]

How very convient for you to just ignore all the silliest parts of the Bible whenever it suits you, yet still claim that it's a Holy Book we should buid our lives around. If we are supposed to use our judgement anyway to disregard the stupid parts, why bother with the Bible at all?

First of all - and I would appreciate a reply here - when have I ever claimed that the Bible is a Holy Book around which anyone should build his life? I would no sooner say such a thing than you would.

Second, no one's talking about disregarding the text. When faced with a text that could be interpreted in more than one way, there's a difference between (1) disfavoring the interpretation that leads to a result that's so absurd it's unlikely to have been the intended meaning and (2) ignoring the text completely. I suspect one of the reasons you find the Bible so meaningless is that you insist on choosing interpretations of it that give it the most ridiculous and improbable meaning. Unfortunately, this means that your views about the Bible are not very useful in the context of discussions about Christianity because (Fundamentalists aside, perhaps) Christians tend to opt for more reasonable interpretations of specific texts, frankly, and the petitionary prayer question is a good example of this.

 

[Meadmaker]

What do Christians base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book?

No, silly. That's what Jews do.



(While my comment is tongue in cheek, there's a fair amount of truth to it. Ever since I started participating in their religious activities, I've figured out more about their approach to Biblical interpretation, and it doesn't bear much resemblance to the way anti-religious people think they ought to be doing it. Also, FWIW, I still don't know whether I ought to call myself Jewish, or to convert. I think the reform movement accepts agnostics, but it's something I have to ask the rabbi about.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No, silly. That's what Jews do.



(While my comment is tongue in cheek, there's a fair amount of truth to it. Ever since I started participating in their religious activities, I've figured out more about their approach to Biblical interpretation, and it doesn't bear much resemblance to the way anti-religious people think they ought to be doing it. Also, FWIW, I still don't know whether I ought to call myself Jewish, or to convert. I think the reform movement accepts agnostics, but it's something I have to ask the rabbi about.)

Christians are, though it may surprise you to hear it, even more guilty of this, as the New Testament contains commandments and prohibitions that few Christians, if any, follow.