Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Ok fine. I'm going to type something up for at least an hour or so. Honestly, I don't understand why I have to do this.... you're not all children you can think for yourselves, I'm just giving you a logical argument and I'm supporting it with logical statements.

    What is logical? Something that when said is sensible in that it doesn't contradict any sort of statement or claim. An example would be "'He prayed for Jesus to save him.' This was out of fear because he needed to be saved from whatever evil that he's up against and whatever it is he's fighting. Logically, you wouldn't pray to be saved out of courage, or any other emotion... to say otherwise is either lying or foolishness." It's just illogical to think otherwise, people's natural responses and their natural mindset towards being "saved" is due to fear.

    Matthew 6:9-13 9 “Pray, then, in this way:

    ‘Our Father who is in heaven,
    Hallowed be Your name.
    10 ‘Your kingdom come.
    Your will be done,
    On earth as it is in heaven.
    11 ‘Give us this day [a]our daily bread.
    12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from [b]evil. [c][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

    Ok. This is praying out of fear because firstly they are praying for bread, which you may already have. If not for this prayer, your bread may vanish... http://www.docs.harvestfwb.net/24_prayerlessnessh.pdf This is a document which holds many reasons to pray. Basically, it is scoured all throughout the Bible... If you do not pray, you will not receive. Period.

    You can easily Google any sort of prayer. Why they prayed at the time and who. I really won't support that anymore because it's SO EASY to find this information on your own dammit, stop acting like a child and expect someone to find everything for you, I'm not a damn encyclopedia I am just an instrument of logic. Yes, I am. Everything I've ever said in my life that I have predicted has either come true or is about to. The existence of God is not logical and that is slowly coming into fruition. The reason religion started was because of prayer.

    This little piece shows you the times when Christianity supposedly began (people's answers, probably priests and others who would know more of this particular subject than I do as to when it began)... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_Christianity_begin

    Shortly after Jesus rose, there was prayer. You would think at first it was "happy" prayer with sing-a-longs OH HAPPY FREAKING DAY JESUS IS BACK! But why are they so happy? Because it was fear, fear of not having Jesus to guide them, to help them... Fear drives prayer. It's logical. I'm sorry if your brain can't fathom that. I've given enough examples but since you need more help I'll give you even more logical arguments.,,

    Lets go back to the begining of Adam and Eve. Adam prayed because he was fearful of the tree. Right? He had to ask God, had to ask for guidance. Or maybe it was Eve that prayed first I don't know. That is how I saw it in one part of the bible, in others Adam and Eve were simply told not to eat the fruit of the tree, and when they did they "opened Pandora's box." What do you think happened then? You think they just sat on their butts and watched? No, I'm sure they went straight to "God" and prayed for forgiveness, out of fear. Fear because they would be punished.

    Ok. When we are able to finally come into consciousness and start thinking for ourselves we may begin to wonder what happens to us after we die. Well, the first logical idea would be to think we go somewhere. An afterlife. If you can remember that far back, then good for you... almost always, unless told otherwise first, you will start thinking there is an afterlife. So it is natural for us to find comfort in that. But as we grow older and smarted and wiser we realize that life isn't so easy and laid back, it's actually much more brutal. But you can keep eating you twix and hope there is an afterlife, and when there isn't... well you'll be disappointed at first and then LOL... nothing.

    So, when we first think of an afterlife we go to our parents and if they are Christian most of the time they'll tell us about Heaven and all the sparkly angels. And then we start to pray to get into heaven because we've sinned, etc... etc... etc... it's all out of fear or uncomfortableness.

    My goodness... you need more evidence? I was reading through articles and found this, I liked it... http://paranormal.about.com/od/lifea...-afterlife.htm

    Wow... I can't find anything on a human beings first question... probably because no one has ever done that study yet. Well, I mean... just think far back... and you know what? Why am I wasting my words here, you obviously can't think for yourself you have to have me or someone else prove everything to you for you to believe a logical statement. So whatever...

    You can throw any of your babbling logic at me and I can tell you why or why not it does or does not make sense. Normally, people understand but some people keep saying "OH YEAH IT IS LOGICAL" obviously though, it's not because I always come out to be correct.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    Ok fine. I'm going to type something up for at least an hour or so. Honestly, I don't understand why I have to do this.... you're not all children you can think for yourselves, I'm just giving you a logical argument and I'm supporting it with logical statements.

    What is logical? Something that when said is sensible in that it doesn't contradict any sort of statement or claim. An example would be "'He prayed for Jesus to save him.' This was out of fear because he needed to be saved from whatever evil that he's up against and whatever it is he's fighting. Logically, you wouldn't pray to be saved out of courage, or any other emotion... to say otherwise is either lying or foolishness." It's just illogical to think otherwise, people's natural responses and their natural mindset towards being "saved" is due to fear.

    Matthew 6:9-13 9 “Pray, then, in this way:

    ‘Our Father who is in heaven,
    Hallowed be Your name.
    10 ‘Your kingdom come.
    Your will be done,
    On earth as it is in heaven.
    11 ‘Give us this day [a]our daily bread.
    12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from [b]evil. [c][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

    Ok. This is praying out of fear because firstly they are praying for bread, which you may already have. If not for this prayer, your bread may vanish... http://www.docs.harvestfwb.net/24_prayerlessnessh.pdf This is a document which holds many reasons to pray. Basically, it is scoured all throughout the Bible... If you do not pray, you will not receive. Period.

    You can easily Google any sort of prayer. Why they prayed at the time and who. I really won't support that anymore because it's SO EASY to find this information on your own dammit, stop acting like a child and expect someone to find everything for you, I'm not a damn encyclopedia I am just an instrument of logic. Yes, I am. Everything I've ever said in my life that I have predicted has either come true or is about to. The existence of God is not logical and that is slowly coming into fruition. The reason religion started was because of prayer.

    This little piece shows you the times when Christianity supposedly began (people's answers, probably priests and others who would know more of this particular subject than I do as to when it began)... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_Christianity_begin

    Shortly after Jesus rose, there was prayer. You would think at first it was "happy" prayer with sing-a-longs OH HAPPY FREAKING DAY JESUS IS BACK! But why are they so happy? Because it was fear, fear of not having Jesus to guide them, to help them... Fear drives prayer. It's logical. I'm sorry if your brain can't fathom that. I've given enough examples but since you need more help I'll give you even more logical arguments.,,

    Lets go back to the begining of Adam and Eve. Adam prayed because he was fearful of the tree. Right? He had to ask God, had to ask for guidance. Or maybe it was Eve that prayed first I don't know. That is how I saw it in one part of the bible, in others Adam and Eve were simply told not to eat the fruit of the tree, and when they did they "opened Pandora's box." What do you think happened then? You think they just sat on their butts and watched? No, I'm sure they went straight to "God" and prayed for forgiveness, out of fear. Fear because they would be punished.

    Ok. When we are able to finally come into consciousness and start thinking for ourselves we may begin to wonder what happens to us after we die. Well, the first logical idea would be to think we go somewhere. An afterlife. If you can remember that far back, then good for you... almost always, unless told otherwise first, you will start thinking there is an afterlife. So it is natural for us to find comfort in that. But as we grow older and smarted and wiser we realize that life isn't so easy and laid back, it's actually much more brutal. But you can keep eating you twix and hope there is an afterlife, and when there isn't... well you'll be disappointed at first and then LOL... nothing.

    So, when we first think of an afterlife we go to our parents and if they are Christian most of the time they'll tell us about Heaven and all the sparkly angels. And then we start to pray to get into heaven because we've sinned, etc... etc... etc... it's all out of fear or uncomfortableness.

    My goodness... you need more evidence? I was reading through articles and found this, I liked it... http://paranormal.about.com/od/lifea...-afterlife.htm

    Wow... I can't find anything on a human beings first question... probably because no one has ever done that study yet. Well, I mean... just think far back... and you know what? Why am I wasting my words here, you obviously can't think for yourself you have to have me or someone else prove everything to you for you to believe a logical statement. So whatever...

    You can throw any of your babbling logic at me and I can tell you why or why not it does or does not make sense. Normally, people understand but some people keep saying "OH YEAH IT IS LOGICAL" obviously though, it's not because I always come out to be correct.
    Obviously you do not understand the format in which proper debate occurs. In a debate, and in this debate site, you are EXPECTED to offer positions and support them with evidence. Simply rambling off and opinion, in a condescending and belittling undertone none the less, while ignoring specific challenges is not acceptable here. If you don't understand why we have this standard in place, I encourage you to read the rules and ask the staff for clarity. Condescending posts that are more combative than communicative will not be tolerated.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  3. Likes Apokalupsis, Squatch347 liked this post
  4. #23
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Lets hypothetically say a good event happened to me today. Lets further assume that I was thankful to God for that event. If I were to offer him a prayer of gratitude, how would that be motivated by fear?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Lets hypothetically say a good event happened to me today. Lets further assume that I was thankful to God for that event. If I were to offer him a prayer of gratitude, how would that be motivated by fear?
    You have to specify what "good" thing happened to you today. And before I get banned because of overly sensitive people, just go ahead and tell me.

  6. #25
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Because of the inability for the author of the op to actually provide an argument with supporting propositions (and follow the rules of this community re: challenges and addressing debate posts), this thread has been moved to the Formal Discussion forum where such requirements for proper debate and exercising the elementary principles of reason is not expected (nor required).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  8. #26
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    How is that a reasonable conclusion to draw? Be specific. What are you reasons for believing so? What points that were offered in my post, leads you to believe such a thing? It would seem that you are not making a distinction between argument and opinion.
    I was just stating what seemed to be obvious. You emphasized the word "all" over and over. That made it clear to me that no matter what was said you were planning to hold him responsible for proving "all" theists believe out of fear vs "most" or "majority", etc. I'm not saying you can't technically demand such a proof based on what he technically said. I'm just pointing out the obvious... that such a proof would be impossible since even if he could prove every theist on the planet prayed out of fear... you could still sit there and claim you don't.

    So, other than maybe jumping at the opportunity to beat someone up just for the fun of it I just don't see what the point was in requesting what is obviously an impossible proof. I think anyone with any common sense knew what he was saying was just an exaggerated opinion... not something that is actually provable... at least not to an impossible degree you are expecting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Are you referring to the comment re: atheists have more faith than theists? If so, that was explained:

    Apok: As far as my statement re: atheists having nothing but blind faith, it was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).

    So I'm not entirely sure what needs clarification here.
    No, I'm referring to what I quoted... lol. Here, I will edit the quote down a hair more just to make sure you see the part I had confusing with. The rest is still important though since it puts it in context of the discussion.

    "I find that atheists have a sort of faith that I could never have nor understand...that of complete and utter blind faith...one that requires irrationality to hold."

    First off, I guess I could do what you did and ask you to prove that ALL atheists do that... but like I pointed out above, that would be pointless. No, my only question is why you are saying it at all? The context of the discussion makes it sound like you are using the term "atheist" for all non theists. Yet later when someone else does something similar to that you make a big point about all the diff categories of non theists.

    So, my confusion was two fold:

    1) When you said that were you referring to all non theists. If so, then I would disagree with your claims in regards to them.

    2) Were you just referring to a specific subset of non theists. If so, why? I don't follow why you would just talk about that one subset of non theists and not all non theists. It's just confusing is all.

  9. #27
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    I was just stating what seemed to be obvious.
    That you may feel something is obvious to you is not the same as objectively demonstrating from reason that something is the case. We are interested in what can be objectively demonstrated...not one's "feelings" or opinions on an issue.

    You emphasized the word "all" over and over. That made it clear to me that no matter what was said you were planning to hold him responsible for proving "all" theists believe out of fear vs "most" or "majority", etc.
    Yes...I used the quantifier "all." That is because that is precisely what his claim was. It is important than when someone makes a claim...that one actually responds accordingly...else we have a strawman. If he did not mean "all" then he would have used an appropriate quantifier. Your objection then, is with his argument for being what is referred to as a "universal" claim (vs "particular").

    I'm not saying you can't technically demand such a proof based on what he technically said. I'm just pointing out the obvious...
    The obvious is that he made a universal claim...and as such, an objection to that claim was made with the context, qualifiers, and quantifiers of his claim. To remove or add to that claim would be intellectually dishonest as well as fallacious.

    that such a proof would be impossible since even if he could prove every theist on the planet prayed out of fear... you could still sit there and claim you don't.
    If there is one such example that contradicts the claim, then the claim is false. It is why making such absolutist claims as he did are almost always grounded in bad reasoning and lack sufficient support. And it is why he is being taken to task for doing so in this thread.

    Had he made the claim that "Most prayer is grounded in fear" then likewise, he would have been challenged to support that.

    You seem to be wanting to accept whatever he says merely because he's a non-theist. Obviously, that's highly fallacious. There is absolutely no validity in his thinking. ANYONE who has ever had any first year logic or critical thinking course would recognize that immediately.

    So, other than maybe jumping at the opportunity to beat someone up just for the fun of it I just don't see what the point was in requesting what is obviously an impossible proof.
    This again, is just bad reasoning. There is no "beating someone up" here at all. He was not attacked, his argument was. Your statement clearly misunderstands what debate is about. Just because someone makes a claim does not mean it is sound. That's rather foolish. And just because someone makes a claim (that you may like or may share other similar views and values with) does not make it sound. His claim was objected to for what are obvious reasons to anyone familiar with elementary principles of reasoning. This was summarized in my 5 pt objection (post #10).

    If I was incorrect in my objection, then those points could be easily responded to by yourself and him. Instead, there is a display of "nuh-uh" which is never compelling (nor appropriate in any debate).

    I think anyone with any common sense knew what he was saying was just an exaggerated opinion... not something that is actually provable... at least not to an impossible degree you are expecting.
    When addressing claims (which ought to be arguments) we don't assume nor do we operate from "common sense" as that is purely subjective and one of the worst forms of evidence. Instead, we take at face value what someone says. If he meant something other than what he said, then he should have said it. If he realized that his wording was poor, then he should have acknowledged it to be insufficient and amended the argument. It's what is done in debate, it is what is expected here in this community. For those new to debate or even critical thinking, that's fine. Mistakes get made. We learn from mistakes, it is how we grow. And it is exactly how all the more experienced debaters, professors, teachers, professionals, and educated members of this community learn and grow.

    And if he was mature enough (in the sense of being knowledgeable and experienced enough in the principles of reasoning, critical thinking, logic, and/or debate), he would have made the change of quantifier and we would have proceeded from there. Instead, he defended his original position, and using "common sense" you should have known that "all" was exactly what he meant.

    In fact, he even clarified his position in post #17:

    Serand: I'm saying fear is the motivation for all prayers,

    And if he had amended the argument to "most" or "some" he would have still needed to support that. You seem to be operating from the position that he doesn't need to support anything and it is inappropriate to object to his claim as well as challenge his position on the basis that he hasn't supported it. That...would be a mistake.


    No, I'm referring to what I quoted...
    Yes...that is the part I thought you were referring to. And as such, my answer (was given):

    Apok: As far as my statement re: atheists having nothing but blind faith, it was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).

    The giveaway should have been the reference to "blind faith." So again, I'm not sure why there is any confusion here.

    First off, I guess I could do what you did and ask you to prove that ALL atheists do that... but like I pointed out above, that would be pointless.
    If I were serious in that claim, you would be right to do so. But this has already been addressed:


    Apok: As far as my statement re: atheists having nothing but blind faith, it was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).


    and:
    1) I'm referring only to atheists (as classically and philosophically understood).
    2) It was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).
    3) It is not the case that all atheists (philosophical) or even non-theists "have more faith than theists" (as per #2).


    No, my only question is why you are saying it at all? The context of the discussion makes it sound like you are using the term "atheist" for all non theists. Yet later when someone else does something similar to that you make a big point about all the diff categories of non theists.
    See above.

    So, my confusion was two fold:

    1) When you said that were you referring to all non theists.
    Where did I make this claim. Be specific. Copy/paste it.

    2) Were you just referring to a specific subset of non theists. If so, why? I don't follow why you would just talk about that one subset of non theists and not all non theists. It's just confusing is all.
    Again, see above.

    You are focusing on a rhetorical response, for some reason not understanding the explanation made about it.

    If it helps, just pretend it was never made, as it isn't an actual argument.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #28
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    That you may feel something is obvious to you is not the same as objectively demonstrating from reason that something is the case. We are interested in what can be objectively demonstrated...not one's "feelings" or opinions on an issue.


    Yes...I used the quantifier "all." That is because that is precisely what his claim was. It is important than when someone makes a claim...that one actually responds accordingly...else we have a strawman. If he did not mean "all" then he would have used an appropriate quantifier. Your objection then, is with his argument for being what is referred to as a "universal" claim (vs "particular").


    The obvious is that he made a universal claim...and as such, an objection to that claim was made with the context, qualifiers, and quantifiers of his claim. To remove or add to that claim would be intellectually dishonest as well as fallacious.


    If there is one such example that contradicts the claim, then the claim is false. It is why making such absolutist claims as he did are almost always grounded in bad reasoning and lack sufficient support. And it is why he is being taken to task for doing so in this thread.

    Had he made the claim that "Most prayer is grounded in fear" then likewise, he would have been challenged to support that.

    You seem to be wanting to accept whatever he says merely because he's a non-theist. Obviously, that's highly fallacious. There is absolutely no validity in his thinking. ANYONE who has ever had any first year logic or critical thinking course would recognize that immediately.


    This again, is just bad reasoning. There is no "beating someone up" here at all. He was not attacked, his argument was. Your statement clearly misunderstands what debate is about. Just because someone makes a claim does not mean it is sound. That's rather foolish. And just because someone makes a claim (that you may like or may share other similar views and values with) does not make it sound. His claim was objected to for what are obvious reasons to anyone familiar with elementary principles of reasoning. This was summarized in my 5 pt objection (post #10).

    If I was incorrect in my objection, then those points could be easily responded to by yourself and him. Instead, there is a display of "nuh-uh" which is never compelling (nor appropriate in any debate).


    When addressing claims (which ought to be arguments) we don't assume nor do we operate from "common sense" as that is purely subjective and one of the worst forms of evidence. Instead, we take at face value what someone says. If he meant something other than what he said, then he should have said it. If he realized that his wording was poor, then he should have acknowledged it to be insufficient and amended the argument. It's what is done in debate, it is what is expected here in this community. For those new to debate or even critical thinking, that's fine. Mistakes get made. We learn from mistakes, it is how we grow. And it is exactly how all the more experienced debaters, professors, teachers, professionals, and educated members of this community learn and grow.

    And if he was mature enough (in the sense of being knowledgeable and experienced enough in the principles of reasoning, critical thinking, logic, and/or debate), he would have made the change of quantifier and we would have proceeded from there. Instead, he defended his original position, and using "common sense" you should have known that "all" was exactly what he meant.

    In fact, he even clarified his position in post #17:

    Serand: I'm saying fear is the motivation for all prayers,

    And if he had amended the argument to "most" or "some" he would have still needed to support that. You seem to be operating from the position that he doesn't need to support anything and it is inappropriate to object to his claim as well as challenge his position on the basis that he hasn't supported it. That...would be a mistake.
    I was just saying it seemed obvious to me. But did I not go ahead and dumb it down for you and explain why I felt it was obvious? Yes. So why the lecture? I'm sorry if I felt you could follow what appeared to me to be a simple point.

    Seriously, are you telling us that you didn't know for a fact that it was impossible for him to prove his point? Are you telling us that you think he could be correct? Despite the fact that in order for him to prove it he would have to prove something about yourself that you apparently know for a fact not to be true?

    All you had to do was say, "Hey, I know for a fact I don't pray for those reasons so there is no way you could ever prove that statement to be fact."

    That was all I was getting at. Why waste debating time on something that is blatantly obvious. Or are you actually telling us you might pray out of fear?

    It just seems like a total waste of time to start a potentially long debate on something you could easily win in one or two lines. Plus, by not putting the nail in the coffin right away it seemed to encourage him to continue to try to prove something that wasn't provable. Which of course means he is a ton more likely to fail to provide supporting propositions. Which you then used as a reason to kill the debate thread and move it to the formal discussion area.

    I'm not saying you weren't justified in doing that based on his responses. What I'm pointing out is that your approach seemed to direct his response such that you got that justification.

    As someone in position of authority on the site I would think your goal would be to do the opposite. Just put a nail in the coffin right off the bat so it becomes blatantly clear to him that he needs to change that position or the thread will be moving.

    All my comment was designed to do was to try to show how this thread could easily lead too far down the wrong road based on the approach that was being taken by both of you. Plus, I was trying to help a new member keep from getting into any potential trouble. I'm a bit confused why I'm now getting lectured for doing so. Was that really the wrong thing to do?

  11. #29
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    I was just saying it seemed obvious to me. But did I not go ahead and dumb it down for you and explain why I felt it was obvious? Yes. So why the lecture? I'm sorry if I felt you could follow what appeared to me to be a simple point. -
    1) What is obvious to some, say the the soundness of the Kalam Coslmological Argument, is not obvious to others. Hence the need to use accurate language. "Obviousness"...is subjective. You should know that.
    2) When something is not obvious, communication is key. The responsibility falls on the author to convey the ideas carefully and clearly.
    3) You were objectively wrong. Serand did not mean what you think he meant...he meant what I thought he meant. He admitted it as such in explicit terms. So why you are still fighting this issue is beyond me.
    4) This objectively and conclusively proves libre, that you cannot rely on what you feel is common sense. Instead, we rely on what we can reason about.

    Seriously, are you telling us that you didn't know for a fact that it was impossible for him to prove his point? Are you telling us that you think he could be correct? Despite the fact that in order for him to prove it he would have to prove something about yourself that you apparently know for a fact not to be true?
    No. The fact that he made an outlandish claim meant he bore a serious burden of proof. It is simple to prove issues of "all" when it actually applies. For example, "All cats are mammals" or "All Christians are theists." This is a universal quantifiable claim (not a particular). He used language conveying a universal quantifiable claim. So my objection was going to do 1 of 2 things...

    1) Force him to realize that him using "all" was incorrect and thus, a better quantifier be used in an amended argument that we could actually discuss...
    or
    2) Force him to acknowledge that what he said isn't what he meant, and thus, a better quantifier be used in an amended argument that we could actually discuss.

    All you had to do was say, "Hey, I know for a fact I don't pray for those reasons so there is no way you could ever prove that statement to be fact."
    I did that. He disagreed with me. Then he said that "fear is the motivation for all prayers,"

    He did so after my objection post #10, points #1 and #2.

    I don't think you are following our discussion there libre.

    That was all I was getting at. Why waste debating time on something that is blatantly obvious. Or are you actually telling us you might pray out of fear?
    I did tell him that. I also objected to his categorical claim. I also offered 2 explicit points on the matter. He disagreed and further claimed explicitly that "fear is the motivation for all prayers," even my own. He stuck to his "blind faithed dogma" regardless however.

    It just seems like a total waste of time to start a potentially long debate on something you could easily win in one or two lines.
    Again, you are incorrect. I stated explicitly that "fear" is not my motivator:

    It's in post #3: Apok: I for one do not believe out of fear (in fact, it would be the last reason for me to do so) nor do I only offer prayer requests (in fact, most of my prayers are that of thankfulness). I believe because it is the most reasonable position. I find that atheists have a sort of faith that I could never have nor understand...that of complete and utter blind faith...one that requires irrationality to hold.

    This was BEFORE me having to explain why he was in error and BEFORE him explicitly stating that I do pray in fear and that "fear is the motivation for all prayers"

    Plus, by not putting the nail in the coffin right away
    You are mistaken. That nail was knocked in my first post...#3. He disagreed with it and that is why it went on as long as it did. You are simply not paying attention to Serand's and my conversation.

    it seemed to encourage him to continue to try to prove something that wasn't provable. Which of course means he is a ton more likely to fail to provide supporting propositions. Which you then used as a reason to kill the debate thread and move it to the formal discussion area.
    It was either that or infract him for trolling because he simply wasn't understanding the elementary principles of an argument or debate (he was sent several pm's explaining what is expected - we tried several times to help him understand how things work here as well as how elementary critical thinking works). By moving the thread to the Formal Discussion forum, he was allowed to carry on as he was and do so without fear of any consequences (unless of course, he was publicly disrespectful of others). This was an act of goodwill to a new member, not some arbitrary punishment. Unfortunately, he decided to pm insults to members of the staff the next day, after several additional pm's about what was expected and what is not acceptable. As a consequence of him receiving several warnings, explanations, and infractions, and him flaming afterwards, he was banned. A good debater would know how to convey their argument articulately and use the most accurate language possible, and/or amend their argument when they realize it was not worded properly...all without insulting other people (or calling them idiots, morons, etc...).


    I'm not saying you weren't justified in doing that based on his responses. What I'm pointing out is that your approach seemed to direct his response such that you got that justification.

    As someone in position of authority on the site I would think your goal would be to do the opposite. Just put a nail in the coffin right off the bat so it becomes blatantly clear to him that he needs to change that position or the thread will be moving.
    See ALL the above. You are mistaken in what happened.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; May 14th, 2013 at 07:16 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #30
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    1) What is obvious to some, say the the soundness of the Kalam Coslmological Argument, is not obvious to others. Hence the need to use accurate language. "Obviousness"...is subjective. You should know that.
    2) When something is not obvious, communication is key. The responsibility falls on the author to convey the ideas carefully and clearly.
    3) You were objectively wrong. Serand did not mean what you think he meant...he meant what I thought he meant. He admitted it as such in explicit terms. So why you are still fighting this issue is beyond me.
    4) This objectively and conclusively proves libre, that you cannot rely on what you feel is common sense. Instead, we rely on what we can reason about.


    No. The fact that he made an outlandish claim meant he bore a serious burden of proof. It is simple to prove issues of "all" when it actually applies. For example, "All cats are mammals" or "All Christians are theists." This is a universal quantifiable claim (not a particular). He used language conveying a universal quantifiable claim. So my objection was going to do 1 of 2 things...

    1) Force him to realize that him using "all" was incorrect and thus, a better quantifier be used in an amended argument that we could actually discuss...
    or
    2) Force him to acknowledge that what he said isn't what he meant, and thus, a better quantifier be used in an amended argument that we could actually discuss.


    I did that. He disagreed with me. Then he said that "fear is the motivation for all prayers,"

    He did so after my objection post #10, points #1 and #2.

    I don't think you are following our discussion there libre.


    I did tell him that. I also objected to his categorical claim. I also offered 2 explicit points on the matter. He disagreed and further claimed explicitly that "fear is the motivation for all prayers," even my own. He stuck to his "blind faithed dogma" regardless however.


    Again, you are incorrect. I stated explicitly that "fear" is not my motivator:

    It's in post #3: Apok: I for one do not believe out of fear (in fact, it would be the last reason for me to do so) nor do I only offer prayer requests (in fact, most of my prayers are that of thankfulness). I believe because it is the most reasonable position. I find that atheists have a sort of faith that I could never have nor understand...that of complete and utter blind faith...one that requires irrationality to hold.

    This was BEFORE me having to explain why he was in error and BEFORE him explicitly stating that I do pray in fear and that "fear is the motivation for all prayers"


    You are mistaken. That nail was knocked in my first post...#3. He disagreed with it and that is why it went on as long as it did. You are simply not paying attention to Serand's and my conversation.


    It was either that or infract him for trolling because he simply wasn't understanding the elementary principles of an argument or debate (he was sent several pm's explaining what is expected - we tried several times to help him understand how things work here as well as how elementary critical thinking works). By moving the thread to the Formal Discussion forum, he was allowed to carry on as he was and do so without fear of any consequences (unless of course, he was publicly disrespectful of others). This was an act of goodwill to a new member, not some arbitrary punishment. Unfortunately, he decided to pm insults to members of the staff the next day, after several additional pm's about what was expected and what is not acceptable. As a consequence of him receiving several warnings, explanations, and infractions, and him flaming afterwards, he was banned. A good debater would know how to convey their argument articulately and use the most accurate language possible, and/or amend their argument when they realize it was not worded properly...all without insulting other people (or calling them idiots, morons, etc...).



    See ALL the above. You are mistaken in what happened.
    My bad then. I know it looked like you might be trying to make a point similar to this in post #3 but you added text about atheists in there which confused me. I made my confusing very clear at the time. You have yet to fully clear up why you added that about atheists and why you would single out a specific subset of non theists for that post... assuming you weren't using atheists as a generic term for all non theists.

    And since I never got a clear explanation why that was included then I had no choice but to assume it was included whenever you brought it up.

    From this latest post I'm just going to assume you are withdrawing the comment about atheists... since that is the only way I could apply the meaning you are providing in this post to those prior posts... without explanation as to why it was included.

  13. #31
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    My bad then. I know it looked like you might be trying to make a point similar to this in post #3 but you added text about atheists in there which confused me. I made my confusing very clear at the time. You have yet to fully clear up why you added that about atheists and why you would single out a specific subset of non theists for that post... assuming you weren't using atheists as a generic term for all non theists.

    And since I never got a clear explanation why that was included then I had no choice but to assume it was included whenever you brought it up.

    From this latest post I'm just going to assume you are withdrawing the comment about atheists... since that is the only way I could apply the meaning you are providing in this post to those prior posts... without explanation as to why it was included.
    Well, about that statement, I've already explained:

    As far as my statement re: atheists having nothing but blind faith, it was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).

    and:

    1) I'm referring only to atheists (as classically and philosophically understood) not the group "non-theists"
    2) It was a tongue in cheek response to show how silly statements like these are when we try to apply them with such broad strokes across entire groups and philosophies (as the op clearly did).
    3) It is not the case that all atheists (philosophical) or even non-theists "have more faith than theists" (as per #2).


    and

    You are focusing on a rhetorical response, for some reason not understanding the explanation made about it.

    If it helps, just pretend it was never made, as it isn't an actual argument.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    To your last comment, yet, he converted to fear, therefore he prayed out of fear. Everyone does this. If it's at the beginning, the end or otherwise. Not necessarily out of fearing they are about to die. Out of fear of ANYTHING.
    That's a pretty hasty generalization, Serand. You're presuming that because one (or few or many) do so, that all do so. That's faulty logic. The same logic you're applying here, I can use to suggest that because SOME atheists reject the notion of God for purely emotional reasons, that all therefore do. You can see the problem with this line of reasoning and why it doesn't work for either side.
    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    Matthew 6:9-13 9 “Pray, then, in this way:

    ‘Our Father who is in heaven,
    Hallowed be Your name.
    10 ‘Your kingdom come.
    Your will be done,
    On earth as it is in heaven.
    11 ‘Give us this day [a]our daily bread.
    12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from [b]evil. [c][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

    Ok. This is praying out of fear because firstly they are praying for bread, which you may already have. If not for this prayer, your bread may vanish... http://www.docs.harvestfwb.net/24_prayerlessnessh.pdf This is a document which holds many reasons to pray. Basically, it is scoured all throughout the Bible... If you do not pray, you will not receive. Period.
    Actually, that's not a prayer motivated by fear. It's an illustrative example Jesus provides his disciples on the mount for the purpose of showing that when you pray, you should be praying out of total submission and dependency on God. There's no fear there. Quite the opposite in fact. The fear is in relying on yourself, rather than depending ENTIRELY on something you can't see, touch, smell, hear, or taste. Or to put it another way: Who's got more courage: The man who says, "I need bread to eat" and goes out and works for the money to buy bread, or the guy who says, "I need bread to eat" and prays for it, relying completely on God to provide the bread? Regardless of how stupid you may think the second guy is, wouldn't you agree it takes far more courage to rely on something intangible, invisible, for your provision than on yourself?
    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    You can easily Google any sort of prayer. Why they prayed at the time and who. I really won't support that anymore because it's SO EASY to find this information on your own dammit, stop acting like a child and expect someone to find everything for you, I'm not a damn encyclopedia I am just an instrument of logic. Yes, I am. Everything I've ever said in my life that I have predicted has either come true or is about to. The existence of God is not logical and that is slowly coming into fruition.
    You misunderstand the rule for supporting your claim. Of course we can google these things and find a plethora of information for both sides. But if I research your argument for myself, then there's really no point in me even discussing the issue with you. By the same token, since you can easily google every counter argument to your position, it begs the question of why you're even here since I just fire back that instead of actually countering your position, that you're wrong and you can google why you're wrong. You can see the problem there. It's counter-productive to reasoned discourse if we just expect others to research our position(s).
    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    The reason religion started was because of prayer.
    Woah there, hoss. You said it started because people were uncomfortable/afraid. So which is it? Did it start because of prayer or did it start because of fear? If it started out of fear, which led to prayer, then you're still dealing with a pretty big leap because you're going from, "I'm afraid of dying" to "I can perform a specific ritual to spare me from permanent death". The second statement has a LOT that needs to be unpacked before you can claim it with any certitude or safety. You'd have to explain the origin of the ritual, the nature of the deity, the reason for the deity to spare mankind, the reason said deity would default to a specific ritual, etc. It's a pretty big leap and I'm concerned you may have bitten off a little more than intended there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    Shortly after Jesus rose, there was prayer. You would think at first it was "happy" prayer with sing-a-longs OH HAPPY FREAKING DAY JESUS IS BACK! But why are they so happy? Because it was fear, fear of not having Jesus to guide them, to help them... Fear drives prayer. It's logical. I'm sorry if your brain can't fathom that. I've given enough examples but since you need more help I'll give you even more logical arguments.,,
    You're misreading/misunderstanding scripture here. They weren't happy that they had their teacher back. They were happy because his resurrection meant the fulfillment of prophecy and everything he told them would happen. From there, after his ascension, they prayed for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This wasn't a prayer motivated by fear either. This was a prayer motivated by a desire to have power in order to demonstrate with clarity and certainty what they knew to be true. When Stephen was stoned to death, his last cries weren't motivated by fear, either. They were motivated out of compassion and love as he cried out to the Lord to redeem the self-same people who were in the process of murdering him to death.
    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    Lets go back to the begining of Adam and Eve. Adam prayed because he was fearful of the tree. Right? He had to ask God, had to ask for guidance. Or maybe it was Eve that prayed first I don't know. That is how I saw it in one part of the bible, in others Adam and Eve were simply told not to eat the fruit of the tree, and when they did they "opened Pandora's box." What do you think happened then? You think they just sat on their butts and watched? No, I'm sure they went straight to "God" and prayed for forgiveness, out of fear. Fear because they would be punished.
    ...Adam and Eve never prayed to God. Considering Genesis explicitly refers to God PHYSICALLY walking in the Garden with Adam and Eve, prayer would be superfluous, unnecessary. There was no fear of the tree. It was respect for God's decree (one of only three He originally had). They didn't go "straight to God" either. They actually ran and tried to hide from Him.
    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    You can throw any of your babbling logic at me and I can tell you why or why not it does or does not make sense. Normally, people understand but some people keep saying "OH YEAH IT IS LOGICAL" obviously though, it's not because I always come out to be correct.
    Dude. Genesis 3, The Fall. Your retelling is so absolutely far from anything resembling what's actually there that, along with your misreading of Matthew, and 1st Samuel, I'm going to go ahead and say that I do not believe you have EVER read ANY of the Bible. This means you are absolutely not equipped to even have this discussion, let alone with the sheer arrogance you're portraying. You should REALLY humble yourself, maybe grab a Bible (some churches give away free copies if you can't afford one, it's how I got the one I currently use) and read a little each day or even each week. Hell, I could go through it with you if you're willing. But the attitude you've got, in combination with the ignorance you've put on display, means your time here is going to be VERY short-lived and ENTIRELY frustrating for you because you'll either be banned for rule violations (like supporting your claim) or voluntarily leave out of anger and shame. So, again: humble yourself a bit. You'll be doing you a favor more than you will me.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  15. Likes Apokalupsis liked this post
  16. #33
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    You have to specify what "good" thing happened to you today. And before I get banned because of overly sensitive people, just go ahead and tell me.
    It is irrelevant. I can be grateful for any good action, and that gratitude is not based upon fear. Hence, your position fails.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #34
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Wow, this was an interesting read: I'm christian and I pray as a purifying experience rather then fear: In the bible it says fear is then enemy, but fear of God is truth: but in that context we fear not Gods wrath: but in our own guilt in which he instilled our conscience. It is fear of wrong doing, because we know we have harmed others. The prayer connected to this is repentance: which involves balancing what you did: setting it straight. I know you want to have company in your disbelief but please keep an open mind here: God isn't the oppressor here.

  18. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that this is a classic case of the "genetic fallacy".

    I reject the argument for many reasons, but I'm not going to even bother when it can be refuted so simply.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  19. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Apokalupsis
    "Does God exist?"

    Theism: "God exists" Non-theism: "I don't believe in God"

    Agnosticism: “I don’t know if God exists” Atheism: “God does not exist”

    Hard Agnosticism: "I don't know
    if God exists and no one else can
    know either." Soft Agnosticism: "I don't know
    if God exists, but it's possible for
    someone to know."
    You missed a step there. after "does god exist" should be , "what god". or even "which" if I am inclined to be kind.

    I take the position of ignostic. Having met many theists each with his or her own brand of god, I am no longer inclined to even think I know what a god is. So I have to wait for some theists to inform me of what they think is a god. Then and only then can we jump to the rest of your diagram and choose which position to take. And usually from the absurdity of the whole idea it is that of an atheist. But with some of the more ridiculous gods I tend to go for anti theist. And just occasionally when I think your all bit weird I actually meet a theist with a reasonable god.

    ---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Challenge to support a claim.
    Support or retract please. Show us the historical evidence.
    Absolute unequivocal evidence? You first, drag gods ass out for me to touch.

    But evidence, might have something for you.

    Try a place called, Göbekli Tepe It is, so far, the first temple ever built. And it shows definite signs of after life worship.
    http://www.gobeklitepe.info/
    There is archelological proof that these installations were not used for domestic use, but predominantly for ritual or religous purposes. Subsequently it became apparent that Gobeklitepe consists of not only one, but many of such stone age temples. Furthermore, both excavations and geo magnetic results revealed that there are at least 20 installations, which in archeological terms can be called a temple.


    ---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Serand View Post
    You have to specify what "good" thing happened to you today. And before I get banned because of overly sensitive people, just go ahead and tell me.
    Sigh! Try googling " how to fear the lord".

    What makes you think fear means being scared of, besides apok.

  20. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    993
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    Who's got more courage: The man who says, "I need bread to eat" and goes out and works for the money to buy bread, or the guy who says, "I need bread to eat" and prays for it, relying completely on God to provide the bread? Regardless of how stupid you may think the second guy is, wouldn't you agree it takes far more courage to rely on something intangible, invisible, for your provision than on yourself?
    No, because I don't believe the trait "courageous" applies in this situation. I don't even think the trait "intelligent" applies here. I think the trait of "acting rationally" applies. It's much more rational IMO for someone who is hungry to take proactive steps to satisfy his hunger rather than to just hope (which IMO is what a prayer like this amounts to) that his hunger gets satisfied in some unspecified way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok, as attributed by SoylentGreen
    "Does God exist?"

    Theism: "God exists" Non-theism: "I don't believe in God"

    Agnosticism: “I don’t know if God exists” Atheism: “God does not exist”

    Hard Agnosticism: "I don't know
    if God exists and no one else can
    know either." Soft Agnosticism: "I don't know
    if God exists, but it's possible for
    someone to know."
    Every person either believes in the existence of God or does not, because as Apok points out, belief is an involuntary psychological attitude that one either has or doesn't. As far as the ontological question "Do you believe X exists?" goes, everyone asked that question either believes that X exists or doesn't. If I believe that the world contains an X then I fall into the "has such a belief" camp; otherwise, I am among those in the "has no such belief" camp.

    To reiterate, Apok is entirely correct here: theism and atheism are both involuntary psychological attitudes (aka, beliefs) about the existence of God.

    So if "X" is replaced with the word "God" then "theist" is the term generally used to describe those in the "has such a belief" category and "atheist" to describe those in the "has no such belief" category.

    The term "agnosticism" relates to an entirely different question. It has to do with whether knowledge is probable or even possible with respect to the question "Does God exist?" A gnostic is one who says evidence or information about that question is available such that it is possible to know whether God exists. One may be either a theist or an atheist, of course, and also be a gnostic.

    One may be a theist or an atheist and also be agnostic about the existence of God. An agnostic says only that since evidence or information about God is unavailable, it's not possible, now and perhaps at any point in the future, to know whether God exists.

    I find it best, then, to use the labels "theist" and "atheist" to describe the psychological attitude that every person has with respect to the question, "Do you believe God exists?" and "gnostic" or "agnostic" to describe one's stance about the evidence that is available today (and perhaps forever) with respect to the question, "Does God exist?"

    If one insists on breaking down further the category of those who have no belief in God's existence into sub-categories of those who actively disbelieve the proposition "God exists" and those who simply have no belief about it, then "hard atheist" (or "strong atheist" or "explicit atheist") can be used to describe the former and "soft atheist" (or "weak atheist" or "implicit atheist"), the latter.

  21. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    No, because I don't believe the trait "courageous" applies in this situation. I don't even think the trait "intelligent" applies here. I think the trait of "acting rationally" applies. It's much more rational IMO for someone who is hungry to take proactive steps to satisfy his hunger rather than to just hope (which IMO is what a prayer like this amounts to) that his hunger gets satisfied in some unspecified way.
    You kind of cut off the qualifiers in there. Look at the first half of what I said, the part you cut out: Actually, that's not a prayer motivated by fear. It's an illustrative example Jesus provides his disciples on the mount for the purpose of showing that when you pray, you should be praying out of total submission and dependency on God. There's no fear there. Quite the opposite in fact. The fear is in relying on yourself, rather than depending ENTIRELY on something you can't see, touch, smell, hear, or taste.

    The context for the discussion was that Serand was arguing that in the example Jesus gives of how to pray (Give us this day our daily bread), that this is an example of praying out of fear. That if one doesn't say this prayer, they won't get bread or their bread will disappear. I was pointing out that the opposite is true instead. It's not fear that motivates one to pray for God to deliver their daily provisions, but confidence. And I see where I misspoke. I clearly gave the impression that the idea is to pray and sit back and wait for God to lob a loaf of bread at your face. That's not the case. We see it happen in Jesus' ministry where as the disciples are walking, they're gathering kernels of wheat or fishing, etc. The point is that you're seeing that provision as coming from God, and the passage quoted is coming from the Sermon on the Mount where a main theme in the teaching is that ALL things come from God. And that's my bad for not speaking clearly.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  22. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    There's no fear there. Quite the opposite in fact. The fear is in relying on yourself, rather than depending ENTIRELY on something you can't see, touch, smell, hear, or taste.[/I]
    Good point Hyde. I think some might call it surrender of the human ego. Once we do everything we can do within our power and ability during challenging times (“God helps those who helps themselves”), there’s a point where we can choose to 'let go and let God'. That's where the power of prayer can come in. The human fear is in letting go of the human ego. As you notably state, that can be a scary proposition. I mean, what on earth are we without our human ego?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  23. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: I'm uncomfortable.

    Even if there was fear that doesn't make it wrong. I could believe out of fear and it could still be true, which would still make me right. Now I don't believe out of fear, but I see no reason to have to justify myself when logically its rather irrelevant.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •