God Can Only Help You If You Believe He’s Able?
The following passages from chapter 6 of the gospel of Mark explain what happened when Jesus had already begun His ministry but returned to Nazareth:
1 Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.
4 But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.” 5 Now He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And He marveled because of their unbelief. Then He went about the villages in a circuit, teaching.
Verse 4 is famous; people quote that a lot. But it’s verse 5 that has always intrigued me, especially the part I put in bold. Of course I’m dependent on the English translations, but at face value, in context it suggests that Jesus could only heal people who believed in Him. In other words, the verse does not say “He refused to do a mighty work,” or even the more neutral “He did no mighty work.” Nope, it says “He could do no mighty work,” except for some minor healings that aren’t impressive for Jesus.
I don’t want to bring up the theological implications at the moment, but just from reading the passage, it sure sounds like Jesus needs the crowd to be with Him in order to really show the full potential of His power.
There are other passages too where you see this theme. On several occasions (here’s just one), Jesus will say words to the effect of, “Your faith has healed you,” as opposed to, “My power just healed you.”
Even the apparent counterexample of Lazarus is more nuanced than I had remembered (since I just re-read it). When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, obviously Lazarus himself wasn’t alive to “really believe it” and so somehow psychosomatically heal himself. However, before raising Lazarus Jesus has an exchange with his sister Martha, who volunteers that Jesus not only could have prevented Lazarus from dying, but even now has the power to bring him back. She also affirms that He is the Christ.
Then, even later when Martha warns Jesus that Lazarus has been in the tomb for four days and that there would be a stench–a sign of disbelief–Jesus reminds her, “Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” So even the story of Lazarus, which I had always filed away as a counterexample of people being healed by their faith in Jesus, is actually a lot more nuanced.
I don’t really have a major conclusion here, just pointing out that this passage always struck me as very interesting. On the one hand, the gospels portray Jesus as God Himself, and yet on the other, there are several places where it sounds as if God can only help us if we’re at least receptive to it. Indeed, that’s arguably the central message of Christianity itself: Jesus will give you eternal life, but it only “works” if you believe that He can. Try this story for a perfect illustration.
Last point: I realize our atheist friends will be able to twist this into a sadistic God in need of constant praise before He relents from punishing people. OK, that’s one way of looking at it, but reading the accounts of Jesus that’s certainly not how He is portrayed. He wants to do mighty works in Nazareth, He wants to gather the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks, but they refuse to accept His help.
Who or what is God?
A good question the answer to which helps you comprehend the base of the believer’s misrepresentation of the atheist position (as presented by Bob in this piece, for instance)
Bala wrote:
the believer’s misrepresentation of the atheist position (as presented by Bob in this piece, for instance)
Bala, you’re saying nobody on this very blog has presented exactly that complaint to me, in the past? I’m not misrepresenting anybody.
No, Bob. While you may have quoted “your atheist friends” (and quite correctly so), I was referring to it as the general believer’s misrepresentation of the atheist position. I was only using your formulation as an instance.
The stronger atheist position (IMO) starts with Joseph’s question. That is all I was acknowledging.
Bala, suppose I said, “To quote our Keynesian friend Paul Krugman, we’re in a liquidity trap. Let me explain why that’s not correct.” Then Daniel Kuehn points to that as an example of “the Austrian misrepresentation of the Keynesian view, of which Bob’s comment is an example.” Would you give Daniel a high-five for that? I doubt it.
I doubt it too. All I said was that this
“I realize our atheist friends will be able to twist this into a sadistic God in need of constant praise before He relents from punishing people”
is not the atheist position or even critical to it. Understanding the position is where Joseph’s question comes in.
“The stronger atheist position (IMO) starts with Joseph’s question.”
Right. It begins with a lack of comprehension.
No, Gene. It starts with a question that you, as always, pompously refuse to answer.
Right, I “always” refuse to answer… even though I answer just below.
Interesting to note that you call THAT an answer.
And remember this point, Gene. Theists are the ones making the claim that God exists. The onus on justifying that claim rests on them. The proper starting point is the define the term “God” and what in reality it stands for. If you want to just refuse to do that, be my guest.
Gene, this is usually about the point that I would hide the word “douche bag” within a fake sneeze. I’m not asking this question in the general sense, I’m asking Bob his opinion. In other words, I want to know what God is to him.
You and Bala can go on ahead with your charade, I’m really not interested. But don’t fucking accuse me –by way of Bala’s comment and your comment below– of having a lack of comprehension or plain ignorance just because you want to be combative.
Even though I am an agnostic atheist, I’ve never been combative or rude on the topic of religion, I’m always respectful in the rare case that I do comment on these Sunday posts. I expect the same decency in return.
It was a simple question. To Bob. That’s it. So if this is how you’re going to respond, then fucking bugger off!
I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your question. Like you, I too normally stay away from debates on Bob’s evangelical posts, but your question just sounded interesting and important.
Next time, I’ll remind myself to stick to silence.
Guys, let’s please calm down. If Putin has to come in and broker a peace deal I will feel so emasculated.
Bob, I think that I was within my rights to be angry here. I simply asked a question, and Gene goes and says that I’m ignorant and uncomprehending. Sure, I may not have read every philosopher’s opinions on God, but I have read quite a bit on the topic, as well as all of the major religious texts, so I’m certainly not some jerk atheist merely spouting off here. Gene was out of line.
I think that I told you some of my opinions on the topic (or at least my feelings with regard to debating the subject or dealing with conversations with religious folks), I know that I’ve told Tom and Heather (I’ve even come to Tom’s defense on his blog when atheists start in on the insults). I’m probably the most open and civil atheist that you’ll ever find on this topic.
In any case, I truly am curious who or what God is to you. Is God merely a spiritual being, is God personified, is God unknowable, etc? I’ve been reading your stuff for about 6 years now and I consider you a friend, but I don’t know that I’ve ever heard your opinion on this (though, I guess that I could try looking it up on google).
Certainly Gene doesn’t know all that much about me, but he should at least know by now that I’m not a jerk, even when my beliefs don’t mesh with that of others.
I can’t give you a good answer right now Joe… Of course you were within your rights to be angry. I am just trying to defuse the situation (F-bombs etc.).
” I simply asked a question, and Gene goes and says that I’m ignorant and uncomprehending.”
SOP Joe, as you really should know from Gene’s own site not just here.
This question has been answered in the world’s philosophical literature at great length, and many great thinkers from various traditions have reached largely similar conclusions: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Averroes, Abelard, Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas, Leibniz, the Brahminic Hindu philosophers, etc. One near universal among modern atheists is basically complete ignorance that this widespread philosophical consensus exists. (Bala will most likely put this ignorance on display after reading this post.)
That means you wouldn’t answer, doesn’t it? What pomp and show with the long list…..!!
Yes, my answer means I “won’t” answer.
And if someone asks me where they might come to understand, say, the foundations of mathematics and I point them to ten good sources, I am engaged in “pomp and show,” rather than answering their questions!
You are desperately over your head here, Bala, and the desperation is showing.
Ha Ha Ha!! That’s real desperation. Comparing a claim on the existence of God with mathematical foundations.
Gene!! One thing no one can find you guilty of is the lack of humour in your pompous pronouncements.
And thanks for the bit of honesty in between. I mean the refusal to answer. That does make for a good reply.
Bala: Speaking of pompous, ever heard of illogically begging the question? Besides, Gene’s mention of math is only an analogy and thus not claiming that math is exactly like “natural theology.” By the way, what do you know of metaphysics, say, from Aristotle and Aquinas? Do you even know what a metaphysical demonstration is in relation to the distinction between act, potency, and change? If you don’t, why in the world would someone give you a detailed reply to your question (which would require 10 pages to reply to, and that’s just for a start). Hence why someone would send you to sources.
Why would an answer to the question “Who or what is God” take 10 pages, incidentally? Just curious because that was the original question, not whether God exists.
Bala
Well Gene et al seem to always assume there is only one idea of god, and then reason forward from that assumption. Never mind it’s a silly assumption; why can’t there be (as some early christians believed) 365 gods, or 2. If god is the creator he could be a kid in 10 dimensions running a school science project — us.
Anyway the folks on Gene’s list all assume god is all knowing, all powerful and all good. These are incompatible and theology is the process of sacrificing one while pretending not to.
I know exactly what you are saying. As I was reading this I heard Vivaldi playing in the background. I’ll bet Gene smokes a pipe – for the affectation. Pseudo-intellectual name-dropper and pompous windbag – I’m going to change my handle to “Gene Trollahan.”
Hey! Some of us atheists like baroque music too. But with mee you’re more likely to hear Bach (or Palestrina).
Pompous windbag, you say. I prefer Persephone’s words. I think those fit Gene better.
A long list of mostly men raised in a particular religion all of whom lived long before not just Darwin and Dalton and Maxwell but even long before Newton and Kepler and Leeuwenhoek.
“In other words, the verse does not say “He refused to do a mighty work,” or even the more neutral “He did no mighty work.” Nope, it says “He could do no mighty work,” except for some minor healings that aren’t impressive for Jesus.
I don’t want to bring up the theological implications at the moment, but just from reading the passage, it sure sounds like Jesus needs the crowd to be with Him in order to really show the full potential of His power. “
Or Jesus’s miracles are just faith healing delusion requiring true believers whose “healing” is just your standard mix of the the placebo effect, psychosomatic diseases or plain fraud.
Not to mention the ancient sources and texts from Greece, Rome and the Near East frequently speak of pagan magicians and priests performing the same type of miracles as Jesus.
That doesn’t make sense as laid out in the context of the bible. (Ie, in one case he brings someone back from the dead, and he stills a storm with a word, or something like that, not really “faith healing”.)
Nature miracles and resurrection stories are found in pagan literature too. Presumably you think that’s good evidence of Zeus, Hermes, Apollo, Hera, Neptune, etc
“A long time ago, Zeus did *such and such*” is not the same as the historically verifiable Gospel story. The books included in the New Testament point accurately to numerous historical events and places, and refer the reader to places where, within a few decades of Christ’s death, they would be able to find independent verification of the events in question.
Most of that pagan literature, by the way, dates AFTER the New Testament documents were written, not before.
“A long time ago, Zeus did *such and such*” is not the same as the historically verifiable Gospel story.”
Where is the historical verification? I’m talking about outside the four corners of the Bible.
“The books included in the New Testament point accurately to numerous historical events and places, and refer the reader to places where, within a few decades of Christ’s death, they would be able to find independent verification of the events in question.”
By that rationale, the fact that the Iron Man comic books mention New York, current and historical events, etc. means that Iron Man exists. Cool. I can’t wait to meet him.
You are just straight up wrong on the last point – Tammuz, Baal, Adonis, etc. all are pre-Jesus. Apollonius of Tyana was a contemporary of Jesus and was alleged to have done similar works – are those true? References to him are correct with regard to times and places – they must be real too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana
In Lord Keynes’s version of social science, if he were a Martian come to earth and he hears from cultures all over the world that human reproduction occurs by combining genitals, he would take it as very good evidence that it must NOT occur that way: “The Christians say reproduction occurs when a man inserts his penis in a woman’s vagina? Ha! I can show that is false because the pagans and the Buddhists and the Confucians all say the same thing too!”
Except your analogy fails. There is nothing supernatural about human reproduction or indeed about any biological form of reproduction, which are obviously straightforwardly consistent with the natural sciences.
But genuine supernatural miracles are contrary to any scientific experience of the universe. Any alien coming to earth and reading of miracles would be justified in rejecting all such stories — no matter what the source — as extremely improbable. Just as any historian does today when reading of miracles in the past, no matter what the source .
There is nothing anti-scientific let alone “contrary” to science about the possibility of, say, faith-healing. What you actually mean is “contrary to materialism,” which is a metaphysical, not scientific position. And all you are saying is that “There is no evidence against my metaphysics, because I will refuse to acknowledge that it IS evidence if it is against my metaphysics!”
“There is nothing anti-scientific let alone “contrary” to science about the possibility of, say, faith-healing. What you actually mean is “contrary to materialism,” which is a metaphysical, not scientific position.”
There is no form of science capable of proving the existence of faith healing.
What you mean to say is that anything supernatural you can think of is not rejected by science, because our minds are literally incapable of apodictically ruling out the existence of such supernatural phenomena.
In other words, your belief rests on a cosmic contradiction. We’re inadequate to know absolute truth (about the human mind), but we’re not inadequate to know absolute truth (about supernatural phenomena).
MF wrote:
There is no form of science capable of proving the existence of faith healing.
You guys are really throwing around strong statements. You’ve heard of the placebo effect, right MF? It’s possible that if someone believes a wise man just healed him, that he actually gets better. I imagine there are documented studies of this effect. It wouldn’t surprise me, for example, if witch doctors in cultures that believe in witchcraft really can curse people, satisfying regression analysis blah blah blah.
Now if what you mean is, “Science can’t prove the existence of God,” OK then you are back on Gene’s turf, where you are simply assuming the materialist position at the outset when you define what science is.
“You’ve heard of the placebo effect, right MF? ”
There is a form of science capable of proving the existence of the placebo effect. The effect has to do with what the human body is capable of doing within itself BIOLIOGICALLY speaking. It doesn’t rest on any supernatural assumption.
But the placebo effect is NOT what theists have in mind when they claim prayer heals people. They have in mind a supernatural, not biological, cause.
“Now if what you mean is, “Science can’t prove the existence of God,” OK then you are back on Gene’s turf, where you are simply assuming the materialist position at the outset when you define what science is.”
Actually we’d still be where we started: There is no form of science capable of proving the existence of faith based healing.
I am not defining any specific science with that comment. I am including ALL human made definitions, and positing that none of them can prove the existence of faith based healing.
This is because all forms of science are constrained to human action, and human action, like you have repeatedly found out when you try to explainthe mind of God, leads you the contradictory position of claiming that humans can’t know, but at the same time they somehow can know.
Sorry, that post doesn’t convey the meaning I intended.
I did not intend to convey the argument that human action leads to contradiction. I meant trying to explain the mind of God leads to contradiction.
“There is no form of science capable of proving the existence of faith based healing.”
You’re on the side of the angels in this debate MF but I think you are wrong on this point. In theory we could measure indicators of religious faith or faith in the healing powers of Jimmy Swaggart and conduct experiments to show that those with said faith are healed: their cancers remit 100% of the time, their AIDS is cured, their lost limbs regenerate. It won’t happen but it’s logically possible.
Ken B. wrote:
You’re on the side of the angels in this debate MF but I think you are wrong on this point. In theory we could measure indicators of religious faith or faith in the healing powers of Jimmy Swaggart and conduct experiments to show that those with said faith are healed: their cancers remit 100% of the time, their AIDS is cured, their lost limbs regenerate. It won’t happen but it’s logically possible.
I’m glad you are at least recognizing that MF is assuming his conclusion, Ken B., but I’m surprised at how confident you guys are on this one. I would be surprised if genuine believers did not have statistically significant superior recovery rates, conditioned on them actually believing they had received a cure from a religious authority whom they trusted.
I once read a completely secular book about a doctor who figured out that the best way to predict which patients would respond to some kind of risky surgery (I think for a heart condition) was to ask why they wanted to try it. The people who said, “Well, my physician said it might work, so I might as well” usually didn’t make it. But the people who said, “I want to get back on the golf course” or “I want to see my grandkid graduate” had much higher success rates. Just looking at the attitude of the patient was much more predictive than other “objective” medical facts about the patients at least in the sample of relevance.
It is hilarious to me how confident you guys assert that the mind has no influence over the body, and think you are being adherents of empiricism. No you’re not. (Ken B., if you really only had in mind someone causing a limb to instantly grow back, OK fair enough, but it sounds like you are saying MF is right in practice but not in principle. MF is not just talking about limbs growing back, he’s talking about being cured of cancer etc.)
Lemme clarify Bob. You did rightly pick up on my mild tone of mockery with the limbs and 100% remission, which was aimed at the Swaggaret crowd, but mostly I was trying to show that MF’s logic is wrong with a clear example where almost everyone would say “whoa that faith healing worked”. My mockery stems from the claims of actual faith healers who don’t talk about statitically significant improvements in a population but *ahem* ‘take up your bed and walk.’
I QUITE AGREE there could be evidence that religious faith has a positive effect on cures. I bet it actually does on depression for example. I think you would need to prove more that that though; you need to factor out any placebo effect (whose existence is disputed btw). You’d need to control for attitude or faith in medical science etc. But it’s quite possible the effect is real. I am quite open to the idea that faith could help recovery. I just want to emphasize that what you are talking about is NOT what Swaggart or the like says he can do, which is what “faith healing” is usually thought of as being.
“Religious faith can be good for your health” is radically different from smacking someone on the forehead yelling “Heal!”
The Bible is made out of thin paper and toilet paper is made out of thin paper. Coincidence?
I am really not sure if this line of reasoning works in your favor. The USD is made of thin paper as well…
So are university and college degrees.
And paintings of Van Gogh…
I don’t like where this is going…
Could it be because he couldn’t find anyone who would even give him the time of day? Ie, since everyone knows ‘good ole jesus, grew up right down the street’, and therefore couldn’t possibly believe that he could be a prophet or a man of cosmic power (?), when he approached them to offer his miracles they just laughed (or uncomfortably brushed) it off?
I do not think this was really in reference to he ‘couldn’t’ do any mighty work there rather he ‘didn’t’ do any mighty work there. This has to do with the interesting thing about God in my experience ( which is really all I have to offer ). I liken asking Jesus for things to prayer.
Prayer is a two fold thing. First, it grants us the blessings God is really willing to give us contingent on our asking – God typically does not interfere with our lives unless we ask Him to. Why would He?
Second, Prayer is the method by which we realign our own will with His. Even Christ sat in the Garden asking for the cup to be taken from him that he might not drink from its bitter draft. Yet in the end he says, ‘Not as I will but as thou wilt’
Lastly, I mean honestly someone putting his hands on you and saying be healed was not a mighty miracle? I am sorry I suppose that the casting of sickness from a body with no medicines or other means simply is not a grand enough miracle lol…
As to those who think Jesus is a fraud, well heck why not take the time and ask God about it, oh wait you don’t believe in Him either. Huh, well really hard to get instruction from someone you refuse to admit exists lol. Just saying it is really easy to deny the existence of something by ignoring it. Just saying, perhaps you should attempt to understand if God is there before you say he isn’t. Just my humble opinion, but by the same token I am just a messenger.
“Prayer is a two fold thing. First, it grants us the blessings God is really willing to give us contingent on our asking – God typically does not interfere with our lives unless we ask Him to. Why would He?”
See Job.
“Second, Prayer is the method by which we realign our own will with His. Even Christ sat in the Garden asking for the cup to be taken from him that he might not drink from its bitter draft. Yet in the end he says, ‘Not as I will but as thou wilt’”
This is a very prevalent position among Christians and shows the stupidity of prayer. If you pray for God to heal your grandmother and he doesn’t the answer to your prayer was “no.” If God does heal your grandmother then the answer was “yes” and often denotes a “miracle.” Either way God’s will is done and your prayer is answered. If God knows his will what is the point of prayer.? The nonsense about realigning your will with God notwithstanding. If God already knows that your grandmother is destined for a dirt nap your prayers are for naught. And if God decides to change his mind what fickle, demented being are you talking to? God always offers an “answer” to prayer – presumably he knew the answer all along – so what is the point in the practice to begin with?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxYtA3VNf0Q
“This is a very prevalent position among Christians and shows the stupidity of prayer.”
This is a very prevalent position among atheists and shows the stupidity of atheists. Prayer is not about GETTING things from God. It is about transforming the one praying. This is kind of the second-grade arithmetic of prayer, and the fact you are ignorant of it and yet write this shows you as someone who doesn’t understand subtraction but likes to call others stupid at math.
“The nonsense about realigning your will with God notwithstanding.”
No, I got it Gene. I just think it is a retarded position to hold. No offense to retards intended (and by retards I’m referring to you Gene).
Gene – I’m not trolling you by referring to you as a retard. After reading you on Bob’s blog I’ve come to the conclusion that you really are developmentally disabled.
Nah, knox, I’ve probably got 50 IQ points on ya.
Gene, when someone mocks you, ask yourself WWJD?
You are probably right, Gene. I mean the cleverness of that retort has you fit for the next opening in the Algonquin Roundtable. Man, you are a douche.
OK guys let’s chill out please.
Sorry Bob. Gene just “strawmanned” me and I got a little overwrought. Apologies to Gene.
I’m curious to see how Gene responds, seeing as how he called Major_Freedom mentally retarded.
He also called for my death.
I pity him.
MF, that fact that you can’t understand sarcasm speaks more poorly of you than of me.
Lord knows I’m no fan of MF Gene, but at least I see him as a guy who tries to engage seriously. You so very often don’t.
“MF, that fact that you can’t understand sarcasm speaks more poorly of you than of me.”
Everything I have ever said that you don’t like has all been sarcasm. You’ve just been too ignorant to see it.
There, now you can’t criticize me either.
“PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.” — Ambrose Bierce
http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/
“Prayer is not about GETTING things from God. It is about transforming the one praying.” This is an ought/is fallacy. Gene thinks that because that is what prayer ought to be that is what it alwasy is. But Christians (and others) routinely pray for outcomes. Church leaders exhort parishiners to pray *for* things. Maybe sophisticates think praying for your son to recover from the ICU is really about seeking for your ‘transformation’ if he dies, but most think it’s simpler: asking that he be allowed to live. You can say they are wrong, but even it they are Knoxharrington isn’t.
@knoxharrington
So, God removes the protection that he has given Job ( because Job was a pious man and had asked for it ) in order to prove a point and provide others ( including Satan ) that a pious man knows God for a reason other than the blessings that have been poured out upon him. Showing that this man lives by the word of God and does not follow him simply because of the gifts given. That in point of fact in contention to what you suggest, God gave to Job and allowed it to be taken away and what is Jobs response? To humble himself before God. In the end more is restored to Job than was taken.
Lastly, you think prayer stupid because you do not understand it. It is a communication tool between yourself and God. You may ‘ask’ God for things, just like you can ask a parent or a government or any ‘authoritative body’ can you not?
As a parent do you give your child everything asked for? As a Government if all you ever said was yes what would happen to your people? You financial stability? Your people’s integrity? You believe that Christians pray to ‘get things’ from God, and we do pray for the blessings and protections that he is ready to offer us but are only given by asking. Knowledge about Him for instance is one of the things you must ask for before He will manifest it to you. Oh you may be stirred by words but until you ask the door will not be opened to you. Hence when Christ speaks and says, “Ask and ye shall be given, knock and it shall be opened unto you”
You misunderstand the nature of pray. It is not to gain, it is to understand. It is to ask for things that are selfish in nature and to accept what the Lord gives in its time. I remember praying for someone who had cancer, we sat down and humbly asked God to take the cancer from this woman. The response we got and I still remember it as we rose from prayer, we looked at one another and she said, “He said no didn’t He?” I looked at her and smiled and said, “Yes, He wants you home.” She sighed and laughed a little. “Well I guess that is all I can do, I will miss my kids, but if it is His will then lets get things prepared here for it.”
We all will die, it is part of God’s plan for us while on this Earth. Asking for an extension of life, may all be well and good but the truth is that your understanding of prayer is very wrong based on how you responded to me. You do not understand the Story of Job either. I suggest you reread it and try to look at it from the prospective of life on this planet is temporary and brief and is NOT the end goal. Nor is God cruel, trust me as you get to know him that from an eternal prospective the choices he makes make perfect sense. Life is fragile, He interferes with it very rarely in a direct fashion. 99 out of 100 times He simply gives knowledge to His children rather than direct action. Sometimes He is more direct.
I understand why you are confused by God and Religion. You are looking at the world from a self serving aspect of the hear and now. This is not a bad thing, it simply means you fail to see the truth behind God and what he has to offer.
Anyway I am happy to discuss it further if you have additional questions. Know however that real knowledge about God must be found on a personal level. I may suggest to you who He is and how He operates but unless you seek it out yourself you will always be perplexed and discount my answers. I suppose the best way to look at it is that I am speaking in terms of Calculus level concepts when it comes to God and you can really only understand simple addition. I do not say this to be condescending but rather that my explanations on these higher level matters and true understand about God and his Plan of happiness or everyone can only really be known by learning the precepts line upon line.
Cheers and I hope that perhaps you might understand a little how your remarks missed the true significance of what I was saying. Again you misunderstood both Job and that just because you ask for something YOU may want, Grandma not dying, it does not mean that you will get it. I mean you honestly want Grandma o continue to live with all the pain she is in? When life is much better on the other side? Really?
This life is TEMPORARY, stop thinking in terms as though it were not.
@ innocent
“God typically does not interfere with our lives unless we ask Him to.”
I pointed to Job as one who didn’t ask God to interfere with his life. Job didn’t ask for boils, poverty, etc. Now, if your contention is that God interfered with Job because Job had availed himself of God by praying then it shows, again, the insanity of prayer. If I pray and am righteous and God says “get ready for it because here it comes” and I’m led into a life of misery I would choose to not avail myself to prayer and roll with the punches. After all, if a righteous man like Job gets what he got what am I going to get. Thanks, I will do without inviting God to smite me – the claim that in the end Job was better off notwithstanding.
I love the “you don’t understand” mantra. No, I get it. I attended church and bowed my head in prayer and found that is helped me not. If God’s will is ultimately done than prayer is useless. If God’s will is changeable then he is a fickle and terrible master who doles out rewards based on penitence.
I perfectly understand what you are saying – it is full of gibberish and circular arguments. God and prayer to him are means for you to salve your fear – nothing more. Who is more laudable – the person who understands that life is fragile and finite and deals with life on that basis or one who believes in an entity that cannot be proven to exist but which promises us cotton candy and lollipops in an ethereal realm where we ride unicorns. No – I don’t think that’s what you think heaven is like but it might as well be.
For the record – all believers are condescending because they are part of the “in crowd” and “get it.” It’s like a Straussian reading Machiavelli – they get all the “in jokes” and everyone else is floundering around. There is no basis to believe God exists and even less basis to believe that prayer is anything other than a waste of time.
@knoxharrington
Okay I think you still misunderstand. Job did ask for God’s interference. He asked to be blessed of God and God blessed him. At least that is what I read… Now Satan ( the Devil – whomever ) comes and says, “Job only praises you because you give him what he wants.” God says, “No Job praises me and is virtuous because he knows me.” Satan says prove it, so God says, fine I will show you the kind of man Job is, he removes the protections, the blessings that He has provided to Job, THAT JOB ASKED FOR lol.
Once this occurs horrible things happen to Job yet he remains faithful. Okay how is God fickle?
Now you get to say, well God chose to give Satan the lead and that shows that God is fickle. Okay, so what you suggest is that a Parent who gives His Child Ice Cream after Dinner but only if they eat their vegetables must provide the same thing every day?
Gods will is done regardless of Prayer. That is not the purpose of prayer. Prayer is used to gain the blessings that God is willing to bestow on us already but are contingent on us ASKING FOR THEM. This includes for the most part KNOWING HIM. It is not about asking for longer life, which is most likely NOT something He is going to be swayed on. I suppose I am confused by your response to me. Which is why I keep coming back to “you do not understand”. Which is funny because you then mocked me ( albeit in your mind justifiably which I can see since you truly did not understand and may simply be a failing on my end to communicate with you )
You really do not understand my point. This is demonstrated by your own statements of gibberish and circular reasoning.
Okay so how do you prove something exists. You demonstrate it does. How can I prove God exists, well you have to seek Him out and understand how to communicate with Him, but how can you do that with something that does not exist? Well… that makes it difficult does it not. No duh. I know how it sounds, yet it is true. Let me put it to you a different way. If I were to tell you there is a microbe that can kill you but you cannot see it yet the symptoms are there what would you suggest as the truth? That by sterilizing your equipment you can prevent death of patients. Well in your place you laugh at the person and say that there is also a magical place where unicorns ride rainbows. It SEEMS far fetched when you do not KNOW through evidence. I am sorry the evidence for God comes from Prayer. Sorry it is the way it is.
Lastly I am here telling you that Prayer is not a waste of time. Hence there is EVIDENCE that prayer is not a waste of time. Your argument is one of discounting honest testimony of something. Now I may be delusional. I will grant that. I may be mistaken, I will grant you that. Yet still do I testify that I have spoken to God in prayer and that He exists. That you, of your own reasoning do not understand Him and that I am not attempting to belittle you but rather share with you my understanding of Him.
I do not believe, though I am imperfect in my own language, that I have derided you in anyway shape or form nor do I expect you to simply accept what I say. In point of fact I would have you prove my words. Take a month, pray earnestly to God ( which if he is not there then no harm done at least you will have had a good conversation with your self ) twice a day for a month, say four or five minutes of time ( in total less than two and a half hours of your life )
The best question to ask in my opinion is “Do you Love me?” and talk about your day and how you reacted to things and where you feel you could have done better.
I believe you will feel God in your life if you do this, and if not, hey what did you lose? a couple hours of time that you did not watch T.V.
But if I am correct and there is something to prayer, that there is a power that comes from honest sincere searching then hey. There you go. You can join me in witnessing that God is there and get derided by others just I have been, often, in point of fact very frequently. You may feel it is easy to ‘believe’ it is very difficult some days. Yet Here I stand letting you know what is there. Cheers and sorry if I in any way shape or form made it sound as though I am belittling your intelligence or your ability to grasp concepts.
@innocent
“Okay I think you still misunderstand. Job did ask for God’s interference. He asked to be blessed of God and God blessed him. At least that is what I read… Now Satan ( the Devil – whomever ) comes and says, “Job only praises you because you give him what he wants.” God says, “No Job praises me and is virtuous because he knows me.” Satan says prove it, so God says, fine I will show you the kind of man Job is, he removes the protections, the blessings that He has provided to Job, THAT JOB ASKED FOR lol.
Once this occurs horrible things happen to Job yet he remains faithful. Okay how is God fickle?”
Since you accuse me of not understanding let me rephrase what you just wrote: Job asked to be blessed and is blessed. Job is a righteous man because he knows God. Satan retorts that he is virtuous because of what he receives. God tells Satan to do your worst and we will see. Satan does his worst and Job is still righteous. Why didn’t God tell Satan to pound sand? Presumably, God knows what is in Job’s heart so allowing Satan to do his worst to a known righteous man appears to be a pretty demented and sick way to treat an honest and righteous man. It is no different from the command that Abraham kill Isaac. God knows Abraham is righteous and still orders him to commit an abhorrent act. What kind of God is this to order his followers to kill their children or to allow their torture for no apparent reason – other than providing a story to include in a book? God is one sick freak. If God is not fickle in this instance than he is minimally one cruel bastard.
“Now you get to say, well God chose to give Satan the lead and that shows that God is fickle. Okay, so what you suggest is that a Parent who gives His Child Ice Cream after Dinner but only if they eat their vegetables must provide the same thing every day?”
Huh? The Job equivalent in your analogy would be that one day God gives Job ice cream for eating his vegetables and the next day, when Job eats his vegetables, God gives him AIDS. The Job story, again, only shows that God is a bad parent, at best, or a cruel one, at worst. I would never treat my children the way God treated Job.
“Gods will is done regardless of Prayer. That is not the purpose of prayer. Prayer is used to gain the blessings that God is willing to bestow on us already but are contingent on us ASKING FOR THEM. This includes for the most part KNOWING HIM. It is not about asking for longer life, which is most likely NOT something He is going to be swayed on. I suppose I am confused by your response to me. Which is why I keep coming back to “you do not understand”. Which is funny because you then mocked me ( albeit in your mind justifiably which I can see since you truly did not understand and may simply be a failing on my end to communicate with you ).
You really do not understand my point. This is demonstrated by your own statements of gibberish and circular reasoning.”
Now I am confused. God’s will is done regardless of whether we pray or not but we can only get the blessings if we ask for them? It seems that God’s will is malleable and therefore not done regardless of whether or not we pray. It appears that God can be molded to our will if we would just ask for the blessings. If your contention is that supplication through prayer allows us to align ourselves with God through communication with him I can understand that contention – I still happen to think it is hogwash and nonsense. Very often Christians fall back on the “you just don’t understand” mantra because, in their minds, to understand is to believe and since I don’t believe, obviously, I don’t understand. Let me be clear – I understand and I don’t believe.
“Okay so how do you prove something exists. You demonstrate it does. How can I prove God exists, well you have to seek Him out and understand how to communicate with Him, but how can you do that with something that does not exist? Well… that makes it difficult does it not. No duh. I know how it sounds, yet it is true. Let me put it to you a different way. If I were to tell you there is a microbe that can kill you but you cannot see it yet the symptoms are there what would you suggest as the truth? That by sterilizing your equipment you can prevent death of patients. Well in your place you laugh at the person and say that there is also a magical place where unicorns ride rainbows. It SEEMS far fetched when you do not KNOW through evidence. I am sorry the evidence for God comes from Prayer. Sorry it is the way it is.
Lastly I am here telling you that Prayer is not a waste of time. Hence there is EVIDENCE that prayer is not a waste of time. Your argument is one of discounting honest testimony of something. Now I may be delusional. I will grant that. I may be mistaken, I will grant you that. Yet still do I testify that I have spoken to God in prayer and that He exists. That you, of your own reasoning do not understand Him and that I am not attempting to belittle you but rather share with you my understanding of Him.”
There is a lot to unpack there and I don’t really want to take the time. I will just say this – you offer a subjective proof based on your “relationship” with God and then offer an objective proof analogy to the germ theory of disease and then you bounce back to a subjective proof through knowing through prayer. Your testimony is not proof of God – it is proof of your belief in God. I hope you can see that those are two ENTIRELY different things. If I told you I believed in unicorns that would not be proof that unicorns exist. It would only be proof that I believe they exist. You would want real evidence that unicorns existed before you believed in them.
“I do not believe, though I am imperfect in my own language, that I have derided you in anyway shape or form nor do I expect you to simply accept what I say. In point of fact I would have you prove my words. Take a month, pray earnestly to God ( which if he is not there then no harm done at least you will have had a good conversation with your self ) twice a day for a month, say four or five minutes of time ( in total less than two and a half hours of your life )”
I could give my testimony at this point of being raised in the Baptist and independent Christian Church, of being baptized at 10, in participating in Campus Crusade and Billy and Franklin Graham Crusades and struggling with my faith for my full adult life and finally coming to the conclusion that is just is not true. Would you believe me that it is false and waste of your time? Probably not. Likewise, when I hear believers tell me I don’t know I don’t believe them.
“The best question to ask in my opinion is “Do you Love me?” and talk about your day and how you reacted to things and where you feel you could have done better.
I believe you will feel God in your life if you do this, and if not, hey what did you lose? a couple hours of time that you did not watch T.V.
But if I am correct and there is something to prayer, that there is a power that comes from honest sincere searching then hey. There you go. You can join me in witnessing that God is there and get derided by others just I have been, often, in point of fact very frequently. You may feel it is easy to ‘believe’ it is very difficult some days. Yet Here I stand letting you know what is there. Cheers and sorry if I in any way shape or form made it sound as though I am belittling your intelligence or your ability to grasp concepts.”
Scientologists get the same thing out of an auditing session on an e-meter – that doesn’t make them correct. I will say this – I get very frustrated at what I see as a lack of self-examination on the part of believers. Time and again I have pointed out to believers inconsistencies in the Bible, logical gaps in their thinking and believers always move the goalposts. It is a game where the believers change the rules in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with the innate understanding that their beliefs are nonsense. Christians are good people, by and large. My father is an elder in his church and he thinks that his religion is wonderful. That’s fine with me. What I object to is believers condescendingly looking down on atheists when they themselves should be on the defensive – not me.
I wonder if there’s any statistically significant difference in life expectancy between weekly churchgoers and everyone else.
Lol, there have been studies on church going people tending to live longer. But I do not think that it is due to any special favors granted by God…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/26/20041226-104514-3168r/?page=all
http://www.concordiaplans.org/graphics/assets/documents/Church_Attendance.pdf
However I would suggest the following. There are rules in life that regulate all things. By exercising and eating healthy foods we can expect certain results, well by attending to ones spiritual needs I believe, and this is simply hypothesis, that you incur a kind of well being that you simply do not get else where. I am personally the kind of guy who loves a good argument and the give and take and exchange of ideas. It is great to learn, which while I may champion a belief here or there does not mean I do not listen to the opposition I simply feel it my duty to attempt to destroy it without mercy. However at church I get to learn on a different level. I receive knowledge that I do not need to contend with, that makes me happier and allows me to understand that while what I do has merit, it is simply water passing beneath a bridge, it is for the here and now and will be gone before I know it.
It provides perspective and understanding. It allows me to focus on growth and listening. In the end though I do not believe that God gives more ‘health’ to people simply because they pray for it. I believe God teaches those that pray. He helps us understand and learn. I might go away tomorrow. I do not know how few my days will be. I do know they are numbered and will simply be grateful for the time I have with this body and on this Earth. To be honest it is this feeling of thankfulness that helps humble me and brings me even greater joy.
Innocent,
You could answer this, but this is intended more for the pompous one….
“Just saying, perhaps you should attempt to understand if God is there before you say he isn’t.”
Just saying, perhaps you should attempt to understand if God is there before you say he is.
Lol, well spoken. Well God is there. That is the purpose of the witnesses born in the Bible. Now it is through the eyes and ears of others and their explanations are not perfect but it testifies of Him well enough to give a starting place.
Cheers
What you have is a record of claims by people long since dead and gone. I don’t see how it establishes that God is there.
It does not establish God, rather it gives a witness of Him. I have documents that record the exploits of Daniel Boone, never met the man. Yet based on all evidence I would suggest he was a real person rather than a composite character.
Second you do not simply have the record of people dead and gone. You have crazy people like myself letting you know that there is one. Nor does this alone establish that there is a God rather it provides evidence that there may be one.
Now the question is how may YOU know there is a God, well I would suggest the following, Read the testimony of those before you, then seek God in earnest prayer. Now this is not a simply, oh hey god if you are there strike me with lightening – after all there are several problems with that scenario. First what good is knowing God is there if dead. Second is that really how you want to go out?
The voice of God, I suppose the spirit, is a still small voice. It is difficult to hear at first, it requires time and effort on your part. Imagine attempting to tune a radio to a station it is difficult to get clear reception at first. It is something that you need to listen for, that you need to soften your heart to hear, that you must wish to actually experience. At least that has been my experience, maybe someone else has had different responses than I have but since I can only talk about myself with any kind of authority…
Maybe a better explanation is imagine being in a crowded room with thousands of people talking you can make out some conversations if you try but there are some many distractions it can be difficult to hear any one conversation. Now God’s Voice is there but difficult to make out.
I don’t see how it gives a witness of Him. It is still a set of statements. And its not just a few crazy people dead and gone. When you tell me He exists, I just ask “How do you say so?”
You are pointing to a text, to which my response is that it is only a set of claims. How do YOU know that He exists?
Next you’ll tell me Gulliver wasn’t real.
Matt 17:20 NIV
He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
“Jesus is possessed of a mana… That he can communicate to other persons… [But only if they are receptive to the communication:] The metanoia, the turning, the healing, the state of faith, had to spring from the soul forces of the individual; there is no sign that Jesus ever attempted to heal or convert persons who did not respond to his call” — Eric Voegelin
Clearly Jesus could do no mighty work there because the Father had not determined that it be so. Jesus can do nothing of Himself, but only the will of the Father. Jesus says “I can of myself do nothing.” (John 5:30) and “the Son can do nothing of Himself.” (John 5:19). Jesus is God, but he is also man, and therefore experienced human desires which sometimes went unfulfilled.
I think that this is a concept that economists would see as obvious — yes god helps you when you want it. to do it other wise is suboptimal.
this is basic incentive compatibility, right? if god helps everyone, indiscriminately, then how can he encourage certain behaviors? isnt this the main lesson from the literature, to encourage effort?
the optimal effort is the key issue — this is where economists and god should see eye to eye. the optimal effort is different per individual, which is why god never says, “do action X” and thats it.
what he does ask is “faith”, the cost of which varies in certain situations, for certain individuals.
“faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”
When Jesus saw active faith in an individual, he assumed such faith came to that person as a gift from God. Yes, he honestly told people that “their” faith had made them whole, and indeed this faith belonged to them individually. Yet in Jesus’s view, faith had first been planted in them by God as a gift. To hear and believe in Jesus in a spiritual sense is a remarkable gift from above, and proof that God had already acted. Not everyone has been gifted with “ears to hear”, but as Jesus says “he who has ears, let him hear”.
These are mystery sayings of Jesus, but to find out how early Apostolic Christianity interpreted belief and unbelief, we need to look at some texts that deal specifically with this subject. A classic occurs in the second half of chapter six of John’s gospel. It is one of the most “in your face” accounts of Jesus in the NT. Please read this section and think about what Jesus is actually telling these “followers of little faith” Please allow me to paraphrase.
After Jesus finishes his very mystic sayings (Jesus tells the crowd that he is the “bread of life, and to have eternal life one must eat his flesh and drink his blood), the folks around Jesus begin to grumble and murmur (they think he is 1) nuts and 2) a blasphemer). After all, Jesus was clearly telling them that they must believe in him to have eternal life.
Jesus then tells them something very unexpected: (my paraphrase) “if you think *you* reject me, I will go you one even better. My father has already rejected you first! Not one of you comes to me unless my Father has first drawn you to believe in me, and I already know many of you will *not* believe in me. In your rejection of me, you are showing that you have already been rejected by God.”
This is just the opposite of how many people believe Jesus the nice guy would respond, but clearly, Jesus is rough on these people here. He is obviously quite indignant, and after the larger crowd disperses, he asks the twelve “will you now leave me too?”.
Let me add one point I hope no-one would dispute. Religious faith can help some people bear with suffering or illness. That can confound arguments based on subjective feelings.
We’ll have to differ on whether it’s an example of god’s mercy or ‘ignorance is bliss,’ but the fact is indiputable.