NationStates Jolt Archive

In in his Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount) as recorded in Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus spoke of public prayer, saying this:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.

He openly encouraged his disciples to not pray in public but rather keep to themselves and pray in private to God. In by doing so, they would be rewarded for praying from the soul in a profound way.

Yet in Timothy 2:8, Paul contradicts the Sermon on the Mount by saying: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

This means that in the New Testament there are contradicting statements regarding the expression of faith via prayer.

My question is, if Christians are the followers of Christ and not Paul then why do they pray in public, want prayer in schools and legislatures etc, yet it was Christ who told his followers to not pray in public?

Jesus isn't commanding you not to pray in public, he is simply attacking the kind of people who pray in public to look good.

Jesus was telling people not to open and flamboyant about the praying. Like for instance you can pray blessing on your food in public, so long as you don't stand on the table, and be like "God, look how good I am. I am here praying to you, because I am good. ". Paul was not contradicting Jesus, but rather saying we should pray every where we go. Prayer doesn't have to be a spoken thing. Its talking to God in what ever way we can at the time. You can pray in public, so long as you don't make an effort to make it noticed. If you do that, then your reward is being noticed, and not being able to converse with God.

Jesus isn't commanding you not to pray in public, he is simply attacking the kind of people who pray in public to look good.Like the sunday church goers?

Jesus isn't commanding you not to pray in public, he is simply attacking the kind of people who pray in public to look good.

That's correct. Although I'm hard pressed for a reason to pray publicly that isn't motivated by a desire to be seen (barring things like disasters or national tragedies, of course).

Like the sunday church goers?

I doubt thats the same thing.

Like the sunday church goers?

No, like standing on the street corner and praying. If you notice, churches are closed to outside attention...they're not showing off for anyone.

Jesus isn't commanding you not to pray in public, he is simply attacking the kind of people who pray in public to look good.

Explain. What do you mean? :)

Explain. What do you mean? :)

Ask Zilam ;)

(read: I'm too lazy)

No, like standing on the street corner and praying. If you notice, churches are closed to outside attention...they're not showing off for anyone.


Well, that's not entirely true. I've seen people pray in church, but instead of speaking from the heart, they read from a piece of paper, to make them sound good.

In in his Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount) as recorded in Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus spoke of public prayer, saying this:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.

He openly encouraged his disciples to not pray in public but rather keep to themselves and pray in private to God. In by doing so, they would be rewarded for praying from the soul in a profound way.

Yet in Timothy 2:8, Paul contradicts the Sermon on the Mount by saying: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

This means that in the New Testament there are contradicting statements regarding the expression of faith via prayer.

My question is, if Christians are the followers of Christ and not Paul then why do they pray in public, want prayer in schools and legislatures etc, yet it was Christ who told his followers to not pray in public?

Note your quote from Mathew. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are" I believe Jesus was commenting more on not praying because you want others to see you praying and more pray from the soul.

Lifting one's hands in prayer doesn't mean to loudly pray, or to be obnoxious nor to show off one's piety, but just to pray. I prayed in school, while sitting in my seat. and no one noticed because I prayed from my soul. I bowed my head while I lifted my spiritual hands towards heaven.

Are you Pat Condell?

These are fair answers. I accept these.

So then of the preachers who stand on street corners and those who go on television to pray, or even those who pray for others, are they part of the group frowned upon? I include people praying for others because I gather from the first passage that I cited that prayer should be a personal dialogue between the prayer (believer) and God, right?

No, you are to pray with and for others. Its like asking God to help those people. Its showing your compassion for said people.

These are fair answers. I accept these.

So then of the preachers who stand on street corners and those who go on television to pray, or even those who pray for others, are they part of the group frowned upon? I include people praying for others because I gather from the first passage that I cited that prayer should be a personal dialogue between the prayer (believer) and God, right?

Prayer is good for at least 4 things(in no particular order):

1) To Praise God.
2)To plead for forgiveness when we do wrong.
3) To communicate with God about one's life
4) To ask God to help us or loved ones out.

Well, that's not entirely true. I've seen people pray in church, but instead of speaking from the heart, they read from a piece of paper, to make them sound good.

That's true as well. I think the general idea is pray, but don't do it to make yourself look good or pious because then it is completely and utterly hollow and false.

Well thank you for your OPINION accipti

When I pray in public, I do so quietly unless asked to lead a prayer publicly.

Prayer is good for at least 4 things(in no particular order):

1) To Praise God.
2)To plead for forgiveness when we do wrong.
3) To communicate with God about one's life
4) To ask God to help us or loved ones out.

1 - Is God's self-esteem so bad that He needs people to praise him? Is he that insecure?

2 - As long as one is expressing true remorse for the course of action or inaction taken. :)

3 - Surely God knows everything about you and your life if he is all powerful and all-knowing.

4 - What about expressing thanks if you had previously prayed to God for help and that help came about? :)

These are fair answers. I accept these.

So then of the preachers who stand on street corners and those who go on television to pray, or even those who pray for others, are they part of the group frowned upon? I include people praying for others because I gather from the first passage that I cited that prayer should be a personal dialogue between the prayer (believer) and God, right?
Street Preachers... dunno, never encountered any.
those praying for others: no, I pray for friends who are sick, and for those who haven't found God.
those going on television to pray are actually leading that prayer.

Of course, this is generalizing. the telling is what they are preaching/praying for as well as what is really in their hearts and minds.

1 - Is God's self-esteem so bad that He needs people to praise him? Is he that insecure?nope. but recieving praise has nothing to do with self-esteem.

2 - As long as one is expressing true remorse for the course of action or inaction taken. :)yep.

3 - Surely God knows everything about you and your life if he is all powerful and all-knowing.yep. but you have to know what you did wrong and perhaps also recieve guidence to do what's right.

4 - What about expressing thanks if you had previously prayed to God for help and that help came about? :)
yep. Giving thanks is also another reason to pray.

In in his Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount) as recorded in Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus spoke of public prayer, saying this:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.

He openly encouraged his disciples to not pray in public but rather keep to themselves and pray in private to God. In by doing so, they would be rewarded for praying from the soul in a profound way.

Yet in Timothy 2:8, Paul contradicts the Sermon on the Mount by saying: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

This means that in the New Testament there are contradicting statements regarding the expression of faith via prayer.

My question is, if Christians are the followers of Christ and not Paul then why do they pray in public, want prayer in schools and legislatures etc, yet it was Christ who told his followers to not pray in public?

in addition to what others have said...

the point of 1timothy 2:8 is to pray without argument or dissention in church. its not suggesting going out into the streets with loud handwaving prayers.

paul never met jesus. the gospels were mostly written after paul's letters so he might have never even heard the "pray in private" story.

and the timothys were probably not written by paul anyway.


From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters.

the three pastoral letters being 1&2 timothy and titus

Unfortunately, Jesus isn't here to ask, 'Did you really say that?' or 'what exactly did you mean by that?'

But assuming He said that, and it sounds like the sort of thing I'd imagine Jesus would say, I think He meant that prayer is not meant to be seen, it's meant to be felt. If you're praying honestly, it's every bit as honest in private as it is in public. However, I would like to point out that Jesus also is inferring that people who pray in public have questionable reasons for doing so, but the person who prays alone is clearly doing so out of faith.

nope. but recieving praise has nothing to do with self-esteem.However, the biblical is begging for worship. You know, his name is Jealousy.

However, the biblical is begging for worship. You know, his name is Jealousy.

which has nothing to do with praising him via prayer.

which has nothing to do with praising him via prayer.why not? what is praising via prayer good for anyways? to lick god's belly button? do jews and christians think that their god isn't sure about who and what he is? a real god wouldn't demand praise.

why not? what is praising via prayer good for anyways? to lick god's belly button? do jews and christians think that their god isn't sure about who and what he is? a real god wouldn't demand praise.

*holds back retort that could get him banned*

No, like standing on the street corner and praying. If you notice, churches are closed to outside attention...they're not showing off for anyone.

I would imagine a prime example would be "Brother Jeb", as he's known, the guy who screams at us as we cross the Oval, telling us we're going to hell and all of that.

why not? what is praising via prayer good for anyways? to lick god's belly button? do jews and christians think that their god isn't sure about who and what he is? a real god wouldn't demand praise.

It's a personal profession of faith, and a sign of ones dedication to their faith to take time out of one's life and dedicate it to one's god.

a real god wouldn't demand praise.

Give me an example of a real god.

Give me an example of a real god.

Cthulhu.

He eats his worshippers *nod*

This whole thing is just more evidence that "religious conservatives" are closer to Pharisees than Christians.

They want prayer in schools, etc. to be seen by others.

One can raise one's hands in private.

This whole thing is just more evidence that "religious conservatives" are closer to Pharisees than Christians.

They want prayer in schools, etc. to be seen by others.

One can raise one's hands in private.

i dont think that is the motivation.

they think that forcing kids to pray every morning will make them better behaved.

sorta the same way forcing them to say the pledge of allegiance every morning makes them more patriotic.

Cthulhu.

He eats his worshippers *nod*

but only because they woke him up. :p

why not? what is praising via prayer good for anyways? to lick god's belly button? do jews and christians think that their god isn't sure about who and what he is? a real god wouldn't demand praise.

Why praise the greatest being in all of existence? Hmm I wonder. Its not that God doesn't know he is great. He does. He just wants us to show that we acknowledge that He is greater than us, and without him, we are nothing.

why not? what is praising via prayer good for anyways? to lick god's belly button? do jews and christians think that their god isn't sure about who and what he is? a real god wouldn't demand praise.

No, a real God just shows his displeasure by sending you off course for 10 years. ;)

Give me an example of a real god.

I kiss the very ground that Loki would walk on, in a metaphorical sense.

Why praise the greatest being in all of existence? Hmm I wonder. Its not that God doesn't know he is great. He does. He just wants us to show that we acknowledge that He is greater than us, and without him, we are nothing.

as you say, god doesnt need praise. the benefits of prayer are all on our side. it is to our benefit to praise god. it helps us to access the divine.

but only because they woke him up. :p

http://www.macguff.fr/goomi/unspeakable/vault203.html

:D

I kiss the very ground that Loki would walk on, in a metaphorical sense.

You're an Asatru?

as you say, god doesnt need praise. the benefits of prayer are all on our side. it is to our benefit to praise god. it helps us to access the divine.

Right on. :)

No, like standing on the street corner and praying. If you notice, churches are closed to outside attention...they're not showing off for anyone.With the obvious exception of the ones that are televised, like our local baptist convention.
http://www.ancbt.org/
http://www.ancbt.org/Media/Podcast/Index_ABT_Podcast.php
http://www.ancbt.org/Media/television/Television_Broadcasts.php
http://www.ancbt.org/Giving/index.php

And the ones that make local fairs.

Praising God is done for a few reasons: One, people praise God simply because of his omnipotence and love. Praising God isn't always outright saying 'God Is Great' (nonetheless this is an example for simplicity on the prayer's part) but is also expressed in simpler ways, like praising God's work. Two, God is praised by his believers because He wishes to be praised, because it shows that his believers love him as he does them. On a side note, God is not human; we are made in His image, not the other way around. At least according to me and my interpretation of Christianity.

Prayer is to our benefit as well because direct communication to God is good. While God does know whatever we are thinking at any time, the act of prayer is done to show that we have a genuine desire for him to know our life and problems, and for him to help us through (The reason prayer does not solve all our problems is that humanity/individuals often doesn't/don't know what is good for it/them, and so ask for the wrong thing). People who pray in public solely to get praise for themselves and benefit for themselves from other people are not being genuine about it.

i dont think that is the motivation.

they think that forcing kids to pray every morning will make them better behaved.

sorta the same way forcing them to say the pledge of allegiance every morning makes them more patriotic.

Gee, I grew up many years ago in western Nebraska. How conservative can you get? Yet we never had prayer in school. Prayer was for home and church. The school only made the concession that it would not schedule anything on Wednesday night or Sunday.

We were well behaved because we knew if we got in trouble at school we would be in far worse trouble when we got home.

If behavior is the motivation, I think a swat you know where would be far more effective.

I still think the better theory is they are neo-Pharisees that want to demonstrate rather than love their neighbors. Jesus never did anything to make anyone of another belief uncomfortable.

Jesus never did anything to make anyone of another belief uncomfortable.

That is a brilliant insight.

That is a brilliant insight.

Generally - 'cept, of course, for throwing the tantrum with the tables of the moneychangers.
Obviously, their beliefs differed from his at that point.

Cthulhu.

He eats his worshippers *nod*

Boy howdy. And personally, i would agree that they deserve it.

Dorothea: What ARE you?
Nix:A man who wanted to become a god... then changed his mind.


Nix: I've got so much power to give you, Swann. All you have to do is beg.
Philip Swann: Fuck you.

Jesus never did anything to make anyone of another belief uncomfortable.

He did fairly frequently.

He did fairly frequently.
uncomfortable... yes, but more as a teacher makes a student uncomfortable, and not like the Spanish Inquisition.

http://www.macguff.fr/goomi/unspeakable/vault203.html

:D

You're an Asatru?

Yes, Wiki is my friend. I had heard it before but I hadn't been sure what it meant. Now I do.

But, I'm sorry my friend but I'm a steadfast Atheist although I quite like Norse and Greek Mythological gods as they are more human-like. I like the discord and chaos represented by Loki. :)

Praising God is done for a few reasons: One, people praise God simply because of his omnipotence and love. Praising God isn't always outright saying 'God Is Great' (nonetheless this is an example for simplicity on the prayer's part) but is also expressed in simpler ways, like praising God's work. Two, God is praised by his believers because He wishes to be praised, because it shows that his believers love him as he does them. On a side note, God is not human; we are made in His image, not the other way around. At least according to me and my interpretation of Christianity.

What is meant by "God's work"? How do you or anyone else for that matter determine what is work by God? I'm assuming it has to be via divine will/intervention, no? What factors do you or others use to determine that it is indeed not the work of humans, be it one person or many people?

Praise equates love? Somehow that one fails me.

To me praise is something you give when something it well-done. It can be issued in a begrudging manner, such as when praising the actions of those who may not agree with, or even go as far as to hate.

And he wishes to be praised? Don't we all wish we could be praised even when it seems that we've screwed up royally? :)

Since we're supposedly made in him image, why is he a "he" since women were also created to be in the image of God. :)

Prayer is to our benefit as well because direct communication to God is good. While God does know whatever we are thinking at any time, the act of prayer is done to show that we have a genuine desire for him to know our life and problems, and for him to help us through (The reason prayer does not solve all our problems is that humanity/individuals often doesn't/don't know what is good for it/them, and so ask for the wrong thing). People who pray in public solely to get praise for themselves and benefit for themselves from other people are not being genuine about it.

If humans supposedly don't know what's good for them, then who does? If God does, why has He failed to inform us? Yes his word may be written in the Bible but written language may be interpreted differently than the original source intended.

If humans don't know what to pray for, why pray then? If we keep praying for the wrong thing, why keep praying? Has there ever been a sign that humans have indeed prayed for the right thing? Prayed and asked for what is indeed, in the eyes of God, good for them?

He just wants us to show that we acknowledge that He is greater than us, and without him, we are nothing.So, it's in fact all about his inferiority complex?

Boy howdy. And personally, i would agree that they deserve it.

What's that from?

Gee, I grew up many years ago in western Nebraska. How conservative can you get? Yet we never had prayer in school. Prayer was for home and church. The school only made the concession that it would not schedule anything on Wednesday night or Sunday.

We were well behaved because we knew if we got in trouble at school we would be in far worse trouble when we got home.

If behavior is the motivation, I think a swat you know where would be far more effective.

I still think the better theory is they are neo-Pharisees that want to demonstrate rather than love their neighbors. Jesus never did anything to make anyone of another belief uncomfortable.

i suppose you may be right. i certainly dont like to try to figure out the minds of these people.

but they do try to justify it by pointing out how well behaved everyone was back inthe day when there was prayer in schools. but, yeah, there is no reason to believe that their stated justification is their real motivation.

Generally - 'cept, of course, for throwing the tantrum with the tables of the moneychangers.
Obviously, their beliefs differed from his at that point.

Yeah. Apparently, people profiting from religion was one of his 'buttons'. Good luck, Pat Robertson. :)

Generally - 'cept, of course, for throwing the tantrum with the tables of the moneychangers.
Obviously, their beliefs differed from his at that point.

Ah, but at that point there were no Christians so to speak... he was a Jewish radical, if anything. And the moneychangers were thrown out of the temple because they had no moral right to be there -- yet the elders allowed such usury right in a place that was supposed to be sacred.

Righteous indignation, so to speak.

So, it's in fact all about his inferiority complex?

Why does anyone even waste time by bothering to try to converse with UB on this? He's made up his mind not simply to not believe, but to be as odious as possible to anyone who does, choosing the absolutely nastiest way possible to tell people that they're stupid and weak, in his opinion.

Why does anyone even bother to try to converse with UB on this? He's made up his mind not simply to not believe, but to be as odious as possible to anyone who does, choosing the absolutely nastiest way possible to tell people that they're stupid and weak, in his opinion.

Is that not what we call trolling?

So, it's in fact all about his inferiority complex?

See here is the thing, you presume to have knowledge and wisdom equal to God's, so you are trying to make your own assumptions about how He works. It serves you no God to try and know the mind of God, and only makes you look like you are trying to compensate your own inferiority complex, by attacking his so called one.

Is that not what we call trolling?

It would be considered trolling IMO, but it seems to be the popular opinion of NSG(that is, to attack christian faith), so no action is taken.

In in his Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount) as recorded in Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus spoke of public prayer, saying this:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.

He openly encouraged his disciples to not pray in public but rather keep to themselves and pray in private to God. In by doing so, they would be rewarded for praying from the soul in a profound way.
Right, the gift God gives is better than any temporal recognition.

Yet in Timothy 2:8, Paul contradicts the Sermon on the Mount by saying: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

This means that in the New Testament there are contradicting statements regarding the expression of faith via prayer.
Not really. Jesus is decrying those who pray as a way to prove how holy they are. He lists several other things, "when you're fasting don't whine about fasting", "when you give alms don't look like it's very hard", etc. Paul is saying he hopes Christians will pray a lot, and not be afraid to pray if they are persecuted (not as big an issue any more, but still true).

My question is, if Christians are the followers of Christ and not Paul then why do they pray in public, want prayer in schools and legislatures etc, yet it was Christ who told his followers to not pray in public?
Again, Christ did not forbid people to pray in public. He told people not to only pray in public as a way of showing how high and mighty they were.

As for wanting prayer in schools and legislatures, I have no idea. My grandmother told a story about the school she went to, where the Lord's Prayer was forced (as it was in most schools). They said it every day, even Yom Kippur... when my grandmother was the only person in the classroom, everyone else was celebrating the holiday back home. That's why forcing prayer in public schools is silly.

He did fairly frequently.

Can you find where Jesus made a person of a different faith feel uncomfortable. Remember, Jesus was Jewish so did criticize Jewish leadership but not others. He blessed Roman soldiers, Samaritans, and all others that he came in contact with.

Even Paul didn't criticize the men of Athens. He praised them for their faith.

Is that not what we call trolling?

It would be considered trolling IMO, but it seems to be the popular opinion of NSG(that is, to attack christian faith), so no action is taken.

i dont think its trolling if he has a consistent if tiresome position.

better to just not address his points. they are always pretty much the same anyway.

Since we're supposedly made in him image, why is he a "he" since women were also created to be in the image of God. :)

because Christians and the Bible writers hate women.......or this...

A speaker may not know or may want to avoid specifying a person's gender. Traditionally, when one wishes to refer to a single definite person androgynously with a pronoun in the third person, the masculine pronoun is used. Some people have begun to challenge this tradition, however, usually by resorting to plural pronouns such as 'they', 'them' and 'their' for singular uses. This is called the singular 'they'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

See here is the thing, you presume to have knowledge and wisdom equal to God's, so you are trying to make your own assumptions about how He works. It serves you no God to try and know the mind of God, and only makes you look like you are trying to compensate your own inferiority complex, by attacking his so called one.If a god is begging to be worshiped, you need to be equally divinely wise to see this as attention whoring?

And btw what do you know about god that you seem to know what it takes to understand how he works? And why is it that other gods do not ask their followers to exclusively worship them like your god does?

i dont think its trolling if he has a consistent if tiresome position.

better to just not address his points. they are always pretty much the same anyway.Yep. That's because the underlying facts do not change. The non-existence of the biblical God renders all of those neat religions that are based on the fabricated biblical theology pointless and their followers aimless. It is most unfortunate that in the Western World after 9/11 and the subsequent confrontation with Islam many have taken a step back in human evolution and have reverted to Christian faith and even fundamentalism. It is a shame that the development that started with the Renaissance, Humanism, and Enlightenment movements is in the process of dying these days.


Why does anyone even waste time by bothering to try to converse with UB on this? He's made up his mind not simply to not believe, but to be as odious as possible to anyone who does, choosing the absolutely nastiest way possible to tell people that they're stupid and weak, in his opinion.In other words, you just can't stand it if someone examines the details of your faith?
Trolling? Well, I would rather consider some folks' apparently "natural" assumption of the biblical God's existence as a basis for starting threads trolling. Why do some folks start god & bible threads? Do they only want their faith acknowledged and confirmed? If so, they should justify their faith first, before they can go on discussing the nerd details.

In other words, you just can't stand it if someone examines the details of your faith?
Trolling? Well, I would rather consider some folks' apparently "natural" assumption of the biblical God's existence as a basis for starting threads trolling. Why do some folks start god & bible threads? Do they only want their faith acknowledged and confirmed? If so, they should justify their faith first, before they can go on discussing the nerd details.

UB, I'm a hardline Atheist (yes, I think God is total bullshit; don't get me started on how I truly feel about religion either) and even I think you're being a prat. If you're just going to insult people rather than attempt to engage in a philosophical debate about the nature of a particular passage and the meaning of it, then why don't you find another thread to go in.

My initial question was calling on Christians to examine an article of their faith, prayer and how the Bible addresses it.

Many people have responded quite positively, while you have wallowed in a cesspool of assholery.

I started this thread because I was just surfing the 'net and came across that phrase and followed up by doing some reading on the Sermon on the Mount. I wanted to engage in a debate about what was truly meant. This is not a thread to determine the actual existence of a Biblical God. It's about whether or not the Bible actually encourages public prayer and how it defines prayer for the individual.

It's Atheists like you that give Atheists like me a bad name.

If you cannot be civil, don't participate in my thread.

UB, I'm a hardline Atheist (yes, I think God is total bullshit; don't get me started on how I truly feel about religion either) and even I think you're being a prat. If you're just going to insult people rather than attempt to engage in a philosophical debate about the nature of a particular passage and the meaning of it, then why don't you find another thread to go in.

My initial question was calling on Christians to examine an article of their faith, prayer and how the Bible addresses it.

Many people have responded quite positively, while you have wallowed in a cesspool of assholery.

I started this thread because I was just surfing the 'net and came across that phrase and followed up by doing some reading on the Sermon on the Mount. I wanted to engage in a debate about what was truly meant. This is not a thread to determine the actual existence of a Biblical God. It's about whether or not the Bible actually encourages public prayer and how it defines prayer for the individual.

It's Atheists like you that give Atheists like me a bad name.

If you cannot be civil, don't participate in my thread.So if you are an atheist, what point is there in discussing whatever the bible says or how it is phrased? What relevance does the bible have at all when the biblical god is inexistent? I tell you: none! Who gives a **** whether the bible encourages public prayer or not when that god the prayers are directed to is a fabrication? Why discuss the particulars of something that is void in its entirety? I don't insult people personally, I just happen to find their faith to be total bullshit, to which you seem to concur. I really don't see the basis for a philosophical debate if the starting point is something as vain as the bible. Keep it real, you know.

So if you are an atheist, what point is there in discussing whatever the bible says or how it is phrased? What relevance does the bible have at all when the biblical god is inexistent? I tell you: none! Who gives a **** whether the bible encourages public prayer or not when that god the prayers are directed to is a fabrication? Why discuss the particulars of something that is void in its entirety? I don't insult people personally, I just happen to find their faith to be total bullshit, to which you seem to concur. I really don't see the basis for a philosophical debate if the starting point is something as vain as the bible. Keep it real, you know.

The Bible has literary value if nothing else. Just as other works, such as The Divine Comedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy) (Dante Alighieri) and The Canterbury Tales (Geoffrey Chaucer) are examples of historic literature, so are the various books of the Bible.

You can have your own set of beliefs and still wish to discuss the subtle meaning of a certain passage; its inherent symbolism and the intended meaning versus the interpreted meaning. You don't need to believe any thing in particular in the literary work as a driving force in order to discuss.

Do you need to believe in the Greek Gods in order to debate The Odyssey or The Iliad? Or that the story, based on the Trojan Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War#Historical_basis) (which may or may not have happened) is real in itself?

The Bible has literary value if nothing else. Just as other works, such as The Divine Comedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy) (Dante Alighieri) and The Canterbury Tales (Geoffrey Chaucer) are examples of historic literature, so are the various books of the Bible.

You can have your own set of beliefs and still wish to discuss the subtle meaning of a certain passage; its inherent symbolism and the intended meaning versus the interpreted meaning. You don't need to believe any thing in particular in the literary work as a driving force in order to discuss.

Do you need to believe in the Greek Gods in order to debate The Odyssey or The Iliad? Or that the story, based on the Trojan Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War#Historical_basis) (which may or may not have happened) is real in itself?

UB does not understand. In his/her world, you believe something, there is nothing else to discuss. He is right and we are wrong. That is his philosphy. He fails to learn that people learn by honest discussion.

UB does not understand. In his/her world, you believe something, there is nothing else to discuss. He is right and we are wrong. That is his philosphy. He fails to learn that people learn by honest discussion.

He is to Atheism what fundamentalists are to Christianity; blind and ignorant of shades of grey. He is what he hates; he emulates what he despises. His reflection must torment him. As he displays the characteristics he deplores in those who attempt to engage in debate, surely he must despise his own reflection. There is much wisdom in "take a long look in the mirror".

He is to Atheism what fundamentalists are to Christianity; blind and ignorant of shades of grey. He is what he hates; he emulates what he despises. His reflection must torment him. As he displays the characteristics he deplores in those who attempt to engage in debate, surely he must despise his own reflection. There is much wisdom in "take a long look in the mirror".

He is the Pat Robertson of atheism. :p

He is the Pat Robertson of atheism. :p

:) Sayeth the blunt hammer of +4 honesty.

Since we're supposedly made in him image, why is he a "he" since women were also created to be in the image of God. :)


God isn't a "he", but in the culture of the times and in the English language "he" is the neutral. It is not respecting in English to use "it".

The Bible has literary value if nothing else. Just as other works, such as The Divine Comedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy) (Dante Alighieri) and The Canterbury Tales (Geoffrey Chaucer) are examples of historic literature, so are the various books of the Bible.

You can have your own set of beliefs and still wish to discuss the subtle meaning of a certain passage; its inherent symbolism and the intended meaning versus the interpreted meaning. You don't need to believe any thing in particular in the literary work as a driving force in order to discuss.

Do you need to believe in the Greek Gods in order to debate The Odyssey or The Iliad? Or that the story, based on the Trojan Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War#Historical_basis) (which may or may not have happened) is real in itself?So the literary value of the bible makes people pray? You have not asked about the literary value of the bible, you asked whether prayer is supposed to be public or private. I.e. you asked about behavior patterns in creating a connection to the biblical god that follow the allegedly divine commands/suggestions written down in the bible. The basic assumption of this is that the biblical god is real and that the circumstances of prayer are relevant in said connection to the biblical god. After all, the bible is not supposed to be fictitious.
Btw, I am not an atheist.

So the literary value of the bible makes people pray? You have not asked about the literary value of the bible, you asked whether prayer is supposed to be public or private. I.e. you asked about behavior patterns in creating a connection to the biblical god that follow the allegedly divine commands/suggestions written down in the bible. The basic assumption of this is that the biblical god is real and that the circumstances of prayer are relevant in said connection to the biblical god. After all, the bible is not supposed to be fictitious.
Btw, I am not an atheist.

It's about interpretation. What does it mean; does it mean Jesus wanted people to pray in public? Or the inverse. You can take any book and attempt to analyse the actions of one of the characters. I didn't feel the need to ask of literary value because I wanted to debate the question and the best way to illicit an answer is often through direct wording that may not seem like a starting basis for literary discussion.

God isn't a "he", but in the culture of the times and in the English language "he" is the neutral. It is not respecting in English to use "it".

But if it's gender neutral... ;)

well you just went and showed everyone you are praying therefore you will burn in hell

Jesus in no way is telling us to stop praying he is showing us how not to pray. He does not want us to pray like the hypocrites. Rather it should be from the heart not for appearance. In fact Jesus said that when we pray we ought to go in to our secret closet and the Lord will reward us. But that does not mean it is wrong to pray in public. When we pray we sometimes need to pray aloud, yet not so everyone can hear us but because sometimes when you pray it is so that someone else can be saved. Jesus is saying when we pray (as we ought to do every day) do not boast and make people feel bad, but use it to encourage our sisters and brothers.

But if it's gender neutral... ;)
It's only been recently that "he" has been out of fashion for a gender neutral pronoun, and it's still debated. Things written right now will still use he as a gender neutral pronoun. You are picking apart grammar and calling it a problem with a religion.

It's B.S. and you know it.

It's only been recently that "he" has been out of fashion for a gender neutral pronoun, and it's still debated. Things written right now will still use he as a gender neutral pronoun. You are picking apart grammar and calling it a problem with a religion.

It's B.S. and you know it.

yeah

its sexism more than a religious declaration. the default gender is male. there has to be a reason to assume the female. although i suppose that once your god has impregnated a woman the claim of masculinity is more serious.

UB, I'm a hardline Atheist (yes, I think God is total bullshit; don't get me started on how I truly feel about religion either) and even I think you're being a prat. If you're just going to insult people rather than attempt to engage in a philosophical debate about the nature of a particular passage and the meaning of it, then why don't you find another thread to go in.

My initial question was calling on Christians to examine an article of their faith, prayer and how the Bible addresses it.

Many people have responded quite positively, while you have wallowed in a cesspool of assholery.

I started this thread because I was just surfing the 'net and came across that phrase and followed up by doing some reading on the Sermon on the Mount. I wanted to engage in a debate about what was truly meant. This is not a thread to determine the actual existence of a Biblical God. It's about whether or not the Bible actually encourages public prayer and how it defines prayer for the individual.

It's Atheists like you that give Atheists like me a bad name.

If you cannot be civil, don't participate in my thread.

Quoted for truth. This guy is not an Atheist. He is an Asshole. With a capital A.

Quoted for truth. This guy is not an Atheist. He is an Asshole. With a capital A.No, the assholes are those who believe in the obviously fabricated Jewish god and his alleged Christian incarnation, although they could and should know better.

yeah

its sexism more than a religious declaration. the default gender is male. there has to be a reason to assume the female. although i suppose that once your god has impregnated a woman the claim of masculinity is more serious.

My point is though, that if it is sexist, it's grammar's problem not Christianity's.

Unless I can blame my psychology textbook's use of the gender neutral he on Jesus.

No, the assholes are those who believe in the obviously fabricated Jewish god and his alleged Christian incarnation, although they could and should know better.

Man, this show's gotten so boring since they just started playing the same rerun over and over again. *yawn*

Man, this show's gotten so boring since they just started playing the same rerun over and over again. *yawn*But the Christian show has not gotten old and boring? The bible is still worth discussing with always new threads? That's ridiculous. The "believers" just keep repeating the same insubstantial ideas over and over again. Jesus said this and Jesus said that... and Paul said something else... what does it matter really when the god they are saying things about is nothing more than a fantasy?

But the Christian show has not gotten old and boring? The bible is still worth discussing with always new threads? That's ridiculous. The "believers" just keep repeating the same insubstantial ideas over and over again.

And every one of those threads comes up with something new, however small it may be. And that makes it worthwhile, makes it interesting to follow along.

Parroting the same crap over and over again, with no attempt to actually support your position, no attempt to critique another's point short of open, unsupported dismissal, provides nothing new, nothing even approaching interesting.

You're like the anti-Semite and anti-Christian version of the 700 Club, on repeat.

Either come up with something new, and something worth reading, or shut up and read.

And every one of those threads comes up with something new, however small it may be.That's a lie. All it ever comes down to is "the bible says so" with no attempt to actually support the respective position. And there hasn't been anything new in the bible for 1600 years.

It's only been recently that "he" has been out of fashion for a gender neutral pronoun, and it's still debated. Things written right now will still use he as a gender neutral pronoun. You are picking apart grammar and calling it a problem with a religion.

It's B.S. and you know it.

It's only BS because you said so. I am picking on it not because it's religion but because it's a god. :)

My point is though, that if it is sexist, it's grammar's problem not Christianity's.

Unless I can blame my psychology textbook's use of the gender neutral he on Jesus.

I never said it was sexist. Nor did I blame Christianity for it, as we know it's the Jews who started it. ;)

Besides, I like using "it" because it obviously gets under your skin. ;)

Quoted for truth. This guy is not an Atheist. He is an Asshole. With a capital A.

Then it's a typo on my part? Better yet, it's my keyboard's fault. :)

But the Christian show has not gotten old and boring? The bible is still worth discussing with always new threads? That's ridiculous. The "believers" just keep repeating the same insubstantial ideas over and over again. Jesus said this and Jesus said that... and Paul said something else... what does it matter really when the god they are saying things about is nothing more than a fantasy?

If its so boring why are you here? I don't see anyone forcing you to participate in the thread.

If its so boring why are you here? I don't see anyone forcing you to participate in the thread.Because I consider it wrong that some folks keep spreading ideas about god, humans, and their interconnection without any foundation except the bible, a work that lacks every objectivity and is in fact full of lies about the religious history of the people(s) it narrates about.

That's a lie. All it ever comes down to is "the bible says so" with no attempt to actually support the respective position. And there hasn't been anything new in the bible for 1600 years.

Which shows you haven't even bothered to pay attention to this thread.

A question was asked. One I haven't seen on NSG before. It was answered, by Christians, in a largely thoughtful and informative manner. No one here has posted "the bible says so," and naught else.

Because I consider it wrong that some folks keep spreading ideas about god, humans, and their interconnection without any foundation except the bible, a work that lacks every objectivity and is in fact full of lies about the religious history of the people(s) it narrates about.

Then you should consider yourself a failure for having been unable to articulate your beliefs in a convincing, or particularly interesting, manner.

Then it's a typo on my part? Better yet, it's my keyboard's fault. :)

Your keyboard is an ingenue. :p

Which shows you haven't even bothered to pay attention to this thread.

A question was asked. One I haven't seen on NSG before. It was answered, by Christians, in a largely thoughtful and informative manner. No one here has posted "the bible says so," and naught else.

Exactly. I posed the question using a direct citation and the people who responded validated the response by speaking both from the heart, since prayer does bring them comfort and from the meaning of the passage. The responses were informative and well written for the most part.

Seeing these responses has led me to wonder why some Christians follow preachers who believe that prayer must not only be public and loud but it must also get the group noticed. Why would they want attention, and for people to respond to the prayers when the prayers are meant for God?

Then you should consider yourself a failure for having been unable to articulate your beliefs in a convincing, or particularly interesting, manner.You see, my beliefs are of no relevance to the issue. The faith of those people who lived in those times that the bible is creating an alternative, religiously re-interpreted history for is of relevance.

And about this thread: two snippets of text that seemingly contradict each other but that are both from people who have never met the historical Yeshua. Two snippets and the question who is to be trusted more: Jesus or Paul. How is that new? Gospels vs Paul is the fight that bible-based Christianity fights internally since its existence as a church.

Because I consider it wrong that some folks keep spreading ideas about god, humans, and their interconnection without any foundation except the bible, a work that lacks every objectivity and is in fact full of lies about the religious history of the people(s) it narrates about.

I thought an atheist had asked if any christians could explain something to him about their religion? You can hardly complain about someone answering a question.

It's only BS because you said so. I am picking on it not because it's religion but because it's a god. :)
and common grammar rules have nothing to do with the gender or lack thereof of God.


I never said it was sexist. Nor did I blame Christianity for it, as we know it's the Jews who started it. ;)
No, whomever translated the Bible into English started it because you are arguing against a basic English grammar rule.

Besides, I like using "it" because it obviously gets under your skin. ;)

troll.

It doesn't bother me or "get under my skin", what bothers me is you have an issue with grammar and are making it an issue with the Bible.

and common grammar rules have nothing to do with the gender or lack thereof of God.

No, whomever translated the Bible into English started it because you are arguing against a basic English grammar rule.

troll.

It doesn't bother me or "get under my skin", what bothers me is you have an issue with grammar and are making it an issue with the Bible.

I do not have an issue with grammar; it just chooses to pick on me because I am utterly defenceless. Point aside, I am not making it an issue with the Bible, I'm saying why not use "it" instead of he? It's gender neutral isn't it? So why assign a gender to it if man and woman are supposedly created in its image?

Plus I like saying "it"; it has a nicer ring to it than "he". He sounds like... I don't know. I just like "it" better. Oral aesthetics.

It, it, it, it...

And further more... I'll thank you not to call me a troll! How rude! I am a weasel!

I do not have an issue with grammar; it just chooses to pick on me because I am utterly defenceless. Point aside, I am not making it an issue with the Bible, I'm saying why not use "it" instead of he? It's gender neutral isn't it? So why assign a gender to it if man and woman are supposedly created in its image?

Plus I like saying "it"; it has a nicer ring to it than "he". He sounds like... I don't know. I just like "it" better. Oral aesthetics.

It, it, it, it...

And further more... I'll thank you not to call me a troll! How rude! I am a weasel!

"it" is for inanimate objects as you well know. it would be inappropriate to use it for god just because "he" is somewhat incorrect. although he is "god the father" for most people so....

"it" is for inanimate objects as you well know. it would be inappropriate to use it for god just because "he" is somewhat incorrect. although he is "god the father" for most people so....

But God is not a living being. As a spiritual-like entity, it is neither animate or inanimate.

Would the impersonal, gender neutral "one" be a more adequate pronoun?

But God is not a living being. As a spiritual-like entity, it is neither animate or inanimate.

then IT is still not appropriate.

perhaps we should have developed a new pronoun for god but, alas, we didnt.

for the vast majority of christian/jewish time there was no doubt that god was male.

erm yeah god isnt real people!!

the bible (and all holy books) contradict each other...

havn'tyou noticed yet?

it' all the time!!

so just get over it and stop wasting your time with it!

erm yeah god isnt real people!!

the bible (and all holy books) contradict each other...

havn'tyou noticed yet?

it' all the time!!

so just get over it and stop wasting your time with it!

shouldnt you have taken your own advice?

then IT is still not appropriate.

perhaps we should have developed a new pronoun for god but, alas, we didnt.

for the vast majority of christian/jewish time there was no doubt that god was male.

Why? Because God is a misogynist? ;) (I mean, look at the Bible, the stricter rules are against women.)

erm yeah god isnt real people!!

the bible (and all holy books) contradict each other...

havn'tyou noticed yet?

it' all the time!!

so just get over it and stop wasting your time with it!

I'm aware that God isn't real. The question wasn't pertaining to the existence of God, but rather why despite what seems to be inherent contradictions, Christians pray publicly.

I know it's a stretch, but maybe should could try not only writing a coherent, and you know, take your own advice since it seems that this thread is wasting your time.

EDIT - what the hell is with all the one-post wonders today?

Why? Because God is a misogynist? ;) (I mean, look at the Bible, the stricter rules are against women.)


its an anthropological thing. the change over from female to male gods is a big thing in human history.


EDIT - what the hell is with all the one-post wonders today?

they arent trollish enough to be a flood of puppets. i guess its the holiday and new members giving the forums a try. gotta start sometime?

its an anthropological thing. the change over from female to male gods is a big thing in human history.

they arent trollish enough to be a flood of puppets. i guess its the holiday and new members giving the forums a try. gotta start sometime?

Ah yes. There are goddesses; of course we don't hear much about them.

Sure... they gotta start some time... but why my thread?

I do not have an issue with grammar; it just chooses to pick on me because I am utterly defenceless. Point aside, I am not making it an issue with the Bible, I'm saying why not use "it" instead of he? It's gender neutral isn't it? So why assign a gender to it if man and woman are supposedly created in its image?

Plus I like saying "it"; it has a nicer ring to it than "he". He sounds like... I don't know. I just like "it" better. Oral aesthetics.

It, it, it, it...

And further more... I'll thank you not to call me a troll! How rude! I am a weasel!
are you not aware of the gender neutral translations of the Bible? there are like 10 of them or something, I have a gender neutral NIV, again it's a grammar thing, it's not a Bible thing.

Why? Because God is a misogynist? ;) (I mean, look at the Bible, the stricter rules are against women.)
what rules?

What's that from?

A coincidence, of course.
I was online doing other shit, and read across that line on the thread here, while simultaneously, our cable channel directory opted for "TBA" on all our channels, so we were flipping through, and the show where that line came from happened to also be on.

"Lord of Illusions".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113690/

Yeah. Apparently, people profiting from religion was one of his 'buttons'. Good luck, Pat Robertson. :)

QFT :D

Ah, but at that point there were no Christians so to speak... he was a Jewish radical, if anything. And the moneychangers were thrown out of the temple because they had no moral right to be there -- yet the elders allowed such usury right in a place that was supposed to be sacred.

Righteous indignation, so to speak.Nonetheless, there was a difference of opinion that Jesus didn't care to keep to himself, and that's how he dealt with it.

And are you sure about no "christians" so to speak - how far along do the apostles have to do with his experience at that point?

because Christians and the Bible writers hate women.......or this...

What's that?

http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_05a.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_05b.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_06.html\
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_07.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co14_34.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co14_35.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1tm02_11-12.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/ep05_22-23.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/ep05_24.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_03a.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_03b.html

There appears to be a pattern emerging here.
And, of course, old habits die hard.

What's that?

http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_05a.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_05b.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_06.html\
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_07.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co14_34.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co14_35.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1tm02_11-12.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/ep05_22-23.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/ep05_24.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_03a.html
http://thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_03b.html

There appears to be a pattern emerging here.
And, of course, old habits die hard.
it could be argued that the translators hated women, in fact it has been, a lot for a long long time.

I picked up a book years ago that talked about it.

http://book.consumerhelpweb.com/authors/bristow/0060610638.htm

I'm not going to read the thread, sorry.

There are many ways to interpret these two passages without creating any contradiction. As a mystic, I immediately thought of it as technical advice on how to commune with god.

The Sermon on the Mount passage discusses humility in prayer. The object or goal of prayer is to subsume the ego and connect with the universal god. By focusing on god instead of looking good for the other believers, we can accomplish this goal more easily.

The Pauline passage is about frequency of prayer. Those of you who like J.D. Salinger may remeber Franny and Zooey's talk about constant prayer. Have you ever tried it? Praying constantly? I tried it once. It provides a transcendental effect of subtle unity. Sort of the mystical equivalent to having a few beer instead of the full drunkenness of a pure state of mystical grace.

But that's just my interpretation. Your's is just as correct, I am sure.

I'm not going to read the thread, sorry.

There are many ways to interpret these two passages without creating any contradiction. As a mystic, I immediately thought of it as technical advice on how to commune with god.

The Sermon on the Mount passage discusses humility in prayer. The object or goal of prayer is to subsume the ego and connect with the universal god. By focusing on god instead of looking god fot the other believers, we can accomplish this goal more easily.

The Pauline passage is about frequency of prayer. Those of you who like J.D. Salinger may remeber Franny and Zooey's talk about constant prayer. Have you ever tried it? Praying constantly? I tried it once. It provides a transcendental effect of subtle unity. Sort of the mystical equivalent to having a few beer instead of the full drunkenness of a pure state of mystical grace.

But that's just my interpretation. Your's is just as correct, I am sure.sounds about right to me.

it could be argued that the translators hated women, in fact it has been, a lot for a long long time. Well, when the source material provides, in context, it's a pretty strong argument, you must admit.
:)

akatastasia
Sweet.

Just a couple of notes...

One. God is referred as 'He' because in the ancient languages (I only speak Latin but I assume it is the same for Greek and Hebrew) the gender non-specific gender was masculine. English translated straight from that. However, it is perfectly ok to refer to God as 'It' or 'She'.

Two. UB cannot disprove the existence of God, any more than I can prove it. In fact, as far as my definition of God goes, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. It is up to the person which makes more sense to them, God, or no God. So UB is attacking us for believing in something which is false? Well, I say to him, prove it is false. It is not up to us to prove it is true, because we are not attacking him on his non-belief. And we know full well it is improbable to prove the existence of God. But we also know it is impossible for him to disprove it.

Three. The people who believe in God, as specified in the Old Testament of the Bible, is a MAJORITY. 51% of the world, at least. Keep that in mind, UB.

And we know full well it is improbable to prove the existence of God.

Why is that again, praytell?

Why is that again, praytell?
There hasn't been a convincing scientific proof of God yet, and I doubt that there will ever be one. Thus, improbable.

There hasn't been a convincing scientific proof of God yet, and I doubt that there will ever be one. Thus, improbable.

Ah, you mean "the" capitalised "God".
Or any number of other anthropomorphised versions.
Indeed, quite improbable.

Ah, you mean "the" capitalised "God".
Or any number of other anthropomorphised versions.
Indeed, quite improbable.
Yes, sorry. You can, however, define a god that almost fits in with many people's definition, that fits in with scientific theory.

You can, however, define a god that almost fits in with many people's definition, that fits in with scientific theory.

Again, i ask (not in derision), how, praytell?

Again, i ask (not in derision), how, praytell?
If you don't care about outrageous miracles, then just define god as the underlying randomness throught the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle. All knowing, all powerful, all present.

If you don't care about outrageous miracles, then just define god as the underlying randomness throught the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle. All knowing, all powerful, all present.

Nicely done.
*bows*

As well, honourable mention for Bell's Theorem, if i may.

Also ... "all-confounding" :D

There hasn't been a convincing scientific proof of God yet...What would count as convincing scientific proof? What are the criteria?

What would count as convincing scientific proof? What are the criteria?
The same criteria as if you were trying to prove anything scientifically.

I read the first two pages. If I read the whole 9ish, this post would be a mile long and half a mile wide.

No, like standing on the street corner and praying. If you notice, churches are closed to outside attention...they're not showing off for anyone.

Not the ones around here. Bigass churches, huge colored glass windows, bigass crosses on top, and a sign out in front in case we didn't notice it was a church.

Prayer is good for at least 4 things(in no particular order):

1) To Praise God.
2)To plead for forgiveness when we do wrong.
3) To communicate with God about one's life
4) To ask God to help us or loved ones out.

All of which I see no point in doing. God knows about our life. God knows if we're sorry. God will help if he wants to help, but we cannot petition the lord with prayer, petition the lord with prayer, petition the lord with prayer.


WE CAN NOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYAH.

Sorry, I had to. Neesika showed me a clip of that a while ago, and it was funny.

Why praise the greatest being in all of existence? Hmm I wonder. Its not that God doesn't know he is great. He does. He just wants us to show that we acknowledge that He is greater than us, and without him, we are nothing.

But what makes him great? Sure, he created it all, but what's he doing these days that makes him so amazing to us? We're much more courageous, brave, enduring, etc than he is simply because we DON'T have the omnipotent powers of the almighty to fall back on. We have to live day to day, unsure about everything, afraid of everything, ignorant of everything - he doesn't have those problems, and he's never had to deal with such a life as we have.

I'd say that without him, we are just as great as we are otherwise, because we don't have him anyway. Not to say he doesn't exist - I'm not sure about it one way or the other - but even if he does, he doesn't overtly make himself known, and certainly lets quite a bit of evil slip into our world and cause us no end of trouble and pain.

We endure, not because we have God - we endure, because we are great, and we don't need a God to validate that for us.

In in his Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount) as recorded in Matthew 6:5-6, Jesus spoke of public prayer, saying this:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.

He openly encouraged his disciples to not pray in public but rather keep to themselves and pray in private to God. In by doing so, they would be rewarded for praying from the soul in a profound way.

Yet in Timothy 2:8, Paul contradicts the Sermon on the Mount by saying: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

This means that in the New Testament there are contradicting statements regarding the expression of faith via prayer.

My question is, if Christians are the followers of Christ and not Paul then why do they pray in public, want prayer in schools and legislatures etc, yet it was Christ who told his followers to not pray in public?

Not all of us pray in public, boyo. But see, the schools aren't going to give us a private room to pray in like the Muslims get (people posted on this forum that Christians don't need a special room - thanks for posting the evidence that we do).

There's group prayer (we pray together) but that's at church, or often at people's homes on request, or at hospital (by request). Not intended for public consumption by non-believers.

Not all of us pray in public, boyo. But see, the schools aren't going to give us a private room to pray in like the Muslims get (people posted on this forum that Christians don't need a special room - thanks for posting the evidence that we do).

There's group prayer (we pray together) but that's at church, or often at people's homes on request, or at hospital (by request). Not intended for public consumption by non-believers.

Where do Muslims get their own prayer-room?

Where do Muslims get their own prayer-room?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praf.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praf.htm

Ah yes, the 5-times-a-day thing.

Ridiculous. If they want to stop whatever they're doing at the moment and suddenly begin praying in one direction, then they can, I don't care, but they take whatever risk they might incur for doing so, such as looking silly in a classroom.

Giving them a room for it is stupid. The dogma was created with the assumption that the followers would all live in a muslim society, where everyone did it so there wouldn't be an issue - if they don't, however, they must adapt.

Personally I wouldn't think God would give a shit, but hey, I employ logic to my superstitions.


Then again, I think praying in general is stupid and pointless regardless of what religion you are, so this is moreso a widespread rule I apply to all religions than a particular gripe with Islam.

Ah yes, the 5-times-a-day thing.

Ridiculous. If they want to stop whatever they're doing at the moment and suddenly begin praying in one direction, then they can, I don't care, but they take whatever risk they might incur for doing so, such as looking silly in a classroom.

Giving them a room for it is stupid. The dogma was created with the assumption that the followers would all live in a muslim society, where everyone did it so there wouldn't be an issue - if they don't, however, they must adapt.

Personally I wouldn't think God would give a shit, but hey, I employ logic to my superstitions.


Then again, I think praying in general is stupid and pointless regardless of what religion you are, so this is moreso a widespread rule I apply to all religions than a particular gripe with Islam.

do you think meditation is useless? I see prayer as more of a centering activity than a petition to God. (because as you said God doesn't need our petitioning......)

do you think meditation is useless? I see prayer as more of a centering activity than a petition to God. (because as you said God doesn't need our petitioning......)

Meditation is an exploration of spiritual self - prayer is nothing like meditation, especially when done in such a way as listed by Zilam.

Meditation is an exploration of spiritual self - prayer is nothing like meditation, especially when done in such a way as listed by Zilam.

how do they differ? I must have missed Zilam's description.

People pray for different reasons. Rather than making different rules for different people based on why they pray, I would propose a meditation/prayer room.

My question then becomes: are there religious rules in the main religions that do not let people of different religions pray together? Can a Christian and a Muslim use the room at the same time?

how do they differ? I must have missed Zilam's description.

"Originally Posted by Zilam
Prayer is good for at least 4 things(in no particular order):

1) To Praise God.
2)To plead for forgiveness when we do wrong.
3) To communicate with God about one's life
4) To ask God to help us or loved ones out."

Meditation is not about praising a higher power, pleading for forgiveness, talking to a higher power, or begging for help. It's about calming yourself and searching within, not above.


People pray for different reasons. Rather than making different rules for different people based on why they pray, I would propose a meditation/prayer room.

Stupid idea. Why have a room just for religious people? Forgive the comparison, but if I superstitiously believed that if I didn't kick a hole in a wall three times a day I'd go to hell, would you offer to give me a soundproof room in which I may do so, and henceforth continually repair the walls of said room so that I may destroy them daily?

If I want to kick a hole in a wall, I should have to do it without burdening anyone else, socially or financially.

My question then becomes: are there religious rules in the main religions that do not let people of different religions pray together? Can a Christian and a Muslim use the room at the same time?

I know a few Christians that wouldn't be too happy about seeing a muslim praying to their god in a Christian church. Doesn't make them right, but the fact remains.

3) To communicate with God about one's life



Blogging for God?

"Originally Posted by Zilam
Prayer is good for at least 4 things(in no particular order):

1) To Praise God.
2)To plead for forgiveness when we do wrong.
3) To communicate with God about one's life
4) To ask God to help us or loved ones out."

Meditation is not about praising a higher power, pleading for forgiveness, talking to a higher power, or begging for help. It's about calming yourself and searching within, not above.




Stupid idea. Why have a room just for religious people? Forgive the comparison, but if I superstitiously believed that if I didn't kick a hole in a wall three times a day I'd go to hell, would you offer to give me a soundproof room in which I may do so, and henceforth continually repair the walls of said room so that I may destroy them daily?

If I want to kick a hole in a wall, I should have to do it without burdening anyone else, socially or financially.



I know a few Christians that wouldn't be too happy about seeing a muslim praying to their god in a Christian church. Doesn't make them right, but the fact remains.

I am so not tempted to respond, Mr. Energizer Bunny of religious threads. But I am stupid enough to do so anyways.

The room isn't for religious people only. It's for people who want to meditate too. Meditation is not exclusively a religious practice.

And vandalism is illegal. I could claim that my religion demands that I kill people, but I still don't get to break laws in order to practice my religion.

I might be able to claim that my religion does not allow me to pray in the company of heathens. The room would then need a schedule.

People pray for different reasons. Rather than making different rules for different people based on why they pray, I would propose a meditation/prayer room.

My question then becomes: are there religious rules in the main religions that do not let people of different religions pray together? Can a Christian and a Muslim use the room at the same time?

I've prayed with Muslims at a Masjid before. Granted, I don't think they knew I was Christian until after the prayer. But, if they wanted to come pray with christians at church, I'm sure many churches would let them come in.

Blogging for God?

Apparently so, yes.

I am so not tempted to respond, Mr. Energizer Bunny of religious threads. But I am stupid enough to do so anyways.

I do my best.

The room isn't for religious people only. It's for people who want to meditate too. Meditation is not exclusively a religious practice.

So why not just have them do it in the library? It's supposed to be quiet in there anyway.

And vandalism is illegal. I could claim that my religion demands that I kill people, but I still don't get to break laws in order to practice my religion.

So there's a point where you're willing to draw the line and say no, and that's the point where it crosses the law?

Okay, so what if I require ice cream? Four kinds, prepared a certain way, blessed by a cow? No laws being broken - but to include it into the school lunch program "to be fair", much like you would want to create a prayer room "to be fair", would be a financial and social burden upon you that you never asked for.

Now, why would my ridiculous requests on behalf of religion be any less doable than any other?

I might be able to claim that my religion does not allow me to pray in the company of heathens. The room would then need a schedule.

Or don't have a room at all. Religion is a personal choice, and a personal practice - each individual should be given the responsibility to worship without the special treatment of any particular governing body, including schools.

I've prayed with Muslims at a Masjid before. Granted, I don't think they knew I was Christian until after the prayer. But, if they wanted to come pray with christians at church, I'm sure many churches would let them come in.

And many others would not.

I do my best.

You are evil. Admit it.

So why not just have them do it in the library? It's supposed to be quiet in there anyway.

Sounds good. We'll do it there.

So there's a point where you're willing to draw the line and say no, and that's the point where it crosses the law?

Yup.

Okay, so what if I require ice cream? Four kinds, prepared a certain way, blessed by a cow? No laws being broken - but to include it into the school lunch program "to be fair", much like you would want to create a prayer room "to be fair", would be a financial and social burden upon you that you never asked for.

Now, why would my ridiculous requests on behalf of religion be any less doable than any other?

Financial burden...good one. Good thing we're doing it in the library. There is also the idea that the space already exists and would not be an increased financial burden. An equivalent analogy would be that we are providing a space for eating the ice cream, and allowing the students to bring the ice cream and eat it at school.

Or don't have a room at all. Religion is a personal choice, and a personal practice - each individual should be given the responsibility to worship without the special treatment of any particular governing body, including schools.

It also goes the other way. Each individual should also be given the freedom to worship without the special interference of any particular governing body, including schools.

You are evil. Admit it.

I hide the horns. It tricks people, but they catch on eventually.

Sounds good. We'll do it there.

Good. Too bad that apparently, according to Smunk and DK, Muslims have their own prayer rooms.

Financial burden...good one. Good thing we're doing it in the library. There is also the idea that the space already exists and would not be an increased financial burden. An equivalent analogy would be that we are providing a space for eating the ice cream, and allowing the students to bring the ice cream and eat it at school.

If you do it in the library, yes. If.

But why allow them to leave class five times a day just to go to the library to pray? Why not do it in class? Assumably, the original problem was that they were shy about doing it in front of other people, but there will be people in the library as well.

It also goes the other way. Each individual should also be given the freedom to worship without the special interference of any particular governing body, including schools.

Nothing's interfering. When they enrolled for public school, they knew there wouldn't be mandatory prayer breaks during the day - they shouldn't enroll and then expect the school to change itself specifically for them.

If they really feel strongly about it then maybe they need to be homeschooled or enrolled in a private school.

If[/i] you do it in the library, yes. If.

But why allow them to leave class five times a day just to go to the library to pray? Why not do it in class? Assumably, the original problem was that they were shy about doing it in front of other people, but there will be people in the library as well.

Nothing's interfering. When they enrolled for public school, they knew there wouldn't be mandatory prayer breaks during the day - they shouldn't enroll and then expect the school to change itself specifically for them.

If they really feel strongly about it then maybe they need to be homeschooled or enrolled in a private school.

I wasn't talking about breaks for prayer. Nor was I discussing having a room only Muslims can use.

I wasn't talking about breaks for prayer. Nor was I discussing having a room only Muslims can use.

Well if they have to do it five times a day, at specific times, then either they have to be excused to go to the library/prayer room or the school has to plan its days around them entirely.

Or the school doesn't get involved and the Muslims can pray in class if they want.

It's really because the type of Christians who legislate for that stuff are complete idiots, most of whom don't read the Bible to an intellectual level.

I think if there is one thing to prove the ape-man, it is the American fundamentalist.
(Who doesn't know his own constitution, or, as you correctly point out, his holy book)
lol

Well if they have to do it five times a day, at specific times, then either they have to be excused to go to the library/prayer room or the school has to plan its days around them entirely.

Or the school doesn't get involved and the Muslims can pray in class if they want.

Or the school lets them pray when they want in the prayer room. Or the kids pray during breaks between classes. Or any number of things. Reality won't limit itself to your two options.

Or the school lets them pray when they want in the prayer room. Or the kids pray during breaks between classes. Or any number of things. Reality won't limit itself to your two options.

So you're saying they can pray whenever they want? There's not a set schedule of five times a day at certain times that will most likely clash with the class schedules?

And the kids can teleport to the prayer room "when they want", and get back before they miss anything important that was being discussed?

So you're saying they can pray whenever they want? There's not a set schedule of five times a day at certain times that will most likely clash with the class schedules?

And the kids can teleport to the prayer room "when they want", and get back before they miss anything important that was being discussed?

No. I am saying that your two options are not the only ones. The policy of the school will also be affected by the number of worshippers, the number of students, the pedagogical techniques, the availability of teachers, the sixze of the school, the length of the breaks, and a host of other things. Therefore, your two options are not the only ones that the schools can choose.

No. I am saying that your two options are not the only ones. The policy of the school will also be affected by the number of worshippers, the number of students, the pedagogical techniques, the availability of teachers, the sixze of the school, the length of the breaks, and a host of other things. Therefore, your two options are not the only ones that the schools can choose.

I don't see how any of those things matter. The longest breaks in between classes I've ever had were five minutes - in middle school they were shorter than that. You spent all your "break" time getting from one end of the school to the other end before the bell rings. You try kneeling in the direction of Mecca and conducting a proper prayer while still making it to class in time.

Also, this is assuming their given times of prayer will perfectly coincide with the breaks themselves. If, however, the times are DURING CLASS, they cannot pray BETWEEN CLASSES.

I don't see how any of those things matter. The longest breaks in between classes I've ever had were five minutes - in middle school they were shorter than that. You spent all your "break" time getting from one end of the school to the other end before the bell rings. You try kneeling in the direction of Mecca and conducting a proper prayer while still making it to class in time.

Also, this is assuming their given times of prayer will perfectly coincide with the breaks themselves. If, however, the times are DURING CLASS, they cannot pray BETWEEN CLASSES.

I understand why you believe that there is a dichotomy. But things are sometimes different.

My eldest daughter just started kindergarden (maternelle pour les francophiles), and she goes to this school that is run on all these happy hippy principles like democracy and collective organisation. This means that if a situation like this arose, the kids and the teachers would all get together and talk about and find a solution. Looks like a bunch of 5 year olds can find a solution that doesn't involve your two options.

I am sure that other schools could come up with more options than the ones you have outlined.

But the Christian show has not gotten old and boring? The bible is still worth discussing with always new threads? That's ridiculous.
Erm...if it's gotten old, why do you keep on responding to it?

Blogging for God?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

I understand why you believe that there is a dichotomy. But things are sometimes different.

My eldest daughter just started kindergarden (maternelle pour les francophiles), and she goes to this school that is run on all these happy hippy principles like democracy and collective organisation. This means that if a situation like this arose, the kids and the teachers would all get together and talk about and find a solution. Looks like a bunch of 5 year olds can find a solution that doesn't involve your two options.

I am sure that other schools could come up with more options than the ones you have outlined.

Well in Kindergarten you pretty much only have one teacher, in one classroom, all day, and the day doesn't even last past 12PM, or if it does, it doesn't begin till 12PM. AM and PM classes, you see. Least, that's how it was with me and my two siblings and everyone I know, but it might be different wherever you are.

So basically, there is no "break between classes" there, because there's no "in between classes". For the situation at hand, I'm assuming it's middle/high school scenario, therefore a bunch of kids who have nothing better to do during their three-hour schoolday other than make macaroni wreaths and learn to color in the lines don't have the same problems or situations we'd have to deal with if we're talking 7-12th grade.

Erm...if it's gotten old, why do you keep on responding to it?Because Christianity is something to be surpassed. Folks have to come out of the mental middle ages.

Because Christianity is something to be surpassed. Folks have to come out of the mental middle ages.
That is unfortunately only your opinion.

That is unfortunately only your opinion.Yes, I know that there are some folks who prefer to remain in the mental middle ages and subsequently deny that the bible is fake, prayer is unnecessary and that this god does not exist. That's not just an opinion, that's the logical conclusion from the available information.

Yes, I know that there are some folks who prefer to remain in the mental middle ages and subsequently deny that the bible is fake, prayer is unnecessary and that this god does not exist. That's not just an opinion, that's the logical conclusion from the available information.
Unfortunately for you, it is not just some. It is most. Most of the population of the world believes in the Biblical God. I also commented that it was your opinion that it is the mental middle ages. I'm afraid that you are severely outnumbered on that opinion too. But hey, you are free to have your opinion. Just like it is my opinion that anyone who believes themselves superior to those who believe in the Biblical God is severely deluded and ignorant.

That is unfortunately only your opinion.

No offense, but i agree that we really, REALLY need to move to new modes of thinking, and frankly, the ages of rationalised barbarism need to stop.
Doesn't matter who is endorsing them.