Your question is a good one. The Bible definitely teaches that prayer is a means by which God accomplishes His will, and that He knows what we will pray before we pray it.

It is a means by which He has chosen to accomplish a work/act/etc that He has always intended to do.

I often ask my children questions though I already know how they will answer...or about things they did that I already know about from my wife. Why? Both they and I enjoy the telling and hearing of it from their own mouths. I'm not just trying to coldly gather data. I'm fathering them, and delighting in them, as God does His own children.

He has not only ordained what will happen, but how. Prayer is one of the ho...

Your question is a good one. The Bible definitely teaches that prayer is a means by which God accomplishes His will, and that He knows what we will pray before we pray it.

It is a means by which He has chosen to accomplish a work/act/etc that He has always intended to do.

I often ask my children questions though I already know how they will answer...or about things they did that I already know about from my wife. Why? Both they and I enjoy the telling and hearing of it from their own mouths. I'm not just trying to coldly gather data. I'm fathering them, and delighting in them, as God does His own children.

He has not only ordained what will happen, but how. Prayer is one of the how's. He could have chosen other means, and certainly He acts without prayers most of the time.

Prayer as a means of God accomplishing His will is definitely an act of grace towards His rebellious creatures. It is a process that changes the pray-er profoundly as he communes with the Creator of his soul.

God could have done any number of different things through any number of different means, but the means He has chosen are perfect for the accomplishment of His purposes.

Fellowship with redeemed man is one of His purposes in Creation, and that may explain His selection of prayer as a means of accomplishing His will.

I will join the governor in asking God to water His good earth.

I am only ashamed in that I do not imitate God more.

Were any of those evils and so much more undeserved by their recipients, perhaps your point would have some validity.

That you breathe God's air with God's lungs and reading this with God's eyes and using God's brain to persist in rebelling against your Creator of the Universe is an unspeakable act of grace (you=any of us).

That you think you deserve any kindness (you still=any of us) or that God owes you anything but judgment shows how little we understand our sin and His holiness.

Any chastisement or testing that drives me to Christ and His tender mercies is welcome, for therein alone, more than any physical comfort this world has ...

I am only ashamed in that I do not imitate God more.

Were any of those evils and so much more undeserved by their recipients, perhaps your point would have some validity.

That you breathe God's air with God's lungs and reading this with God's eyes and using God's brain to persist in rebelling against your Creator of the Universe is an unspeakable act of grace (you=any of us).

That you think you deserve any kindness (you still=any of us) or that God owes you anything but judgment shows how little we understand our sin and His holiness.

Any chastisement or testing that drives me to Christ and His tender mercies is welcome, for therein alone, more than any physical comfort this world has to offer, is the peace that passes understanding.

I hope you'll find that peace, too. Paul was in the process of killing Christians when Jesus Christ saved him from his sin. There's hope.

Were any of those evils and so much more undeserved by their recipients, perhaps your point would have some validity.

Look at the stories told in the bible! Are you saying all those first born of egypt god slaughtered where deserving of death? That Lot's family where evil and it was ok to destroy them simply to test his faith? That all the children and infants (both born and in the womb) where evil creatures deserving death at the hands of god when he flooded the world?

Maybe you should stop and think about what you are pandering rather than just playing lip service to the weekly dogma you are fed.

I believe they've reached their week of rain.

I suspect that...

Were any of those evils and so much more undeserved by their recipients, perhaps your point would have some validity.

Look at the stories told in the bible! Are you saying all those first born of egypt god slaughtered where deserving of death? That Lot's family where evil and it was ok to destroy them simply to test his faith? That all the children and infants (both born and in the womb) where evil creatures deserving death at the hands of god when he flooded the world?

Maybe you should stop and think about what you are pandering rather than just playing lip service to the weekly dogma you are fed.

I believe they've reached their week of rain.

I suspect that regardless of people praying or not it would have evenutally come. This is like throwing a stone at the ground and praying that god makes it land. It's an empty proof of prayer. But these are the empty results that people cling to in order to sustain their belief.

Yes, one sin merits God's eternal wrath. Your problem with that shows you do not understand the absolute holiness of God and wretchedness of sin. Apart from that understanding, an appreciation of God's grace is not possible.

How is answering your criticisms "pandering?"

How ignorant and arrogant of you to presume that the only way I could think Almighty You are wrong must be because I haven't stopped to think. In fact, I've probably thought about it more than you can imagine.

I do not pay lip service to the doctrines taught in the God's Word, I love them and live them. They are life to my bones. I only wish I were more faithful to them.

It's not lip service...it's unreserved pas...

Yes, one sin merits God's eternal wrath. Your problem with that shows you do not understand the absolute holiness of God and wretchedness of sin. Apart from that understanding, an appreciation of God's grace is not possible.

How is answering your criticisms "pandering?"

How ignorant and arrogant of you to presume that the only way I could think Almighty You are wrong must be because I haven't stopped to think. In fact, I've probably thought about it more than you can imagine.

I do not pay lip service to the doctrines taught in the God's Word, I love them and live them. They are life to my bones. I only wish I were more faithful to them.

It's not lip service...it's unreserved passionate devotion..not unlike your unreserved passionate devotion to your dogmas, fed to you be the media, or the University Professor.

But the point really was about prayer, and why God has chosen to accomplish His will--such as sending rain or withholding it--through the prayers of His people. One answer is that He graciously cultivates fellowship and communion with His children.

Who says anyone needs to "prove" prayer? Much less to you? For that matter, what makes you think a rock will land when you throw it to the ground?

My mention of Lot (in my prior post) was mistaken, I had meant Job but had "Lot on the brain" from another discussion I am in.

Yes, one sin merits God's eternal wrath

Doesn't this simply allow the cessation of critical thinking? First you project an image of god moving all over the world and acting and then you suggest that when things happen in the world it is according to his will and when you recognize things that just don't seem right (children starving, innocents suffering) then you assign that nebulous "sin" to them to free god from blame. Tell me, what sin can a child commit?

But the point really was about prayer ... such as sending rain or withholding it

...

My mention of Lot (in my prior post) was mistaken, I had meant Job but had "Lot on the brain" from another discussion I am in.

Yes, one sin merits God's eternal wrath

Doesn't this simply allow the cessation of critical thinking? First you project an image of god moving all over the world and acting and then you suggest that when things happen in the world it is according to his will and when you recognize things that just don't seem right (children starving, innocents suffering) then you assign that nebulous "sin" to them to free god from blame. Tell me, what sin can a child commit?

But the point really was about prayer ... such as sending rain or withholding it

The rain comes and falls regardless of prayer. There is no magic man in the sky opening and closing windows in heaven and releasing water. It's meteorology operating on climate conditions and geography. Praying on something that is going to happen is not a prayer answered. You could pray to a paint stain and get the same results. I am praying to an empty coke can right now that you will respond to this post. Let us see the power of Coke-a-Cola!

what makes you think a rock will land when you throw it to the
ground?

You don't even see that statement as ridiculous do you? It's obvious that you simply say anything and deny everything rather than to actually face your system of belief and question it when it is utterly ridiculous.

After checking their definitions I agree that I used those words incorrectly. "Pandering" should be "promoting" and "playing lip service to" should be "regurgitating".

I made that statement to point out that your answers are all given on the assumption that what you believe is real; "the bible is true because it says its true". It's circular logic. Your answers are just further proselytising and have no real informative content. You simply believe and accept. You are not examining what you say and are simply repeating what you've been to

I am very glad that you recognize that my anwers are all given on the assumption that what I believe is real.

Curious--on what basis do you think children starving or suffering is wrong or evil?

God certainly does not need me to "free him from blame."

Why do you only respond to my questions with angry protestations of my ridiculousness? I'll try again: What makes you think the rock will hit the ground? If it's so ridiculous, answer it.

How can you assert "the rain comes and goes regardless of prayer?" How can you know that? Can you observe empirically the absence of prayer as a cause of rain?

I do not think there is a magic man in heaven opening and closing windows. If I said any such...

I am very glad that you recognize that my anwers are all given on the assumption that what I believe is real.

Curious--on what basis do you think children starving or suffering is wrong or evil?

God certainly does not need me to "free him from blame."

Why do you only respond to my questions with angry protestations of my ridiculousness? I'll try again: What makes you think the rock will hit the ground? If it's so ridiculous, answer it.

How can you assert "the rain comes and goes regardless of prayer?" How can you know that? Can you observe empirically the absence of prayer as a cause of rain?

I do not think there is a magic man in heaven opening and closing windows. If I said any such thing, I misspoke.

What I do assert is that God controls all the natural processes He Himself created down to the quark levels, and employs them as He wills. I don't deny that God uses one part of His creation to effect another part, such that His will is given effect.

Nor do I deny that He could open a window and dump out some water if He so chose.

You could pray to a paint stain or a Co' Cola, but they will not send rain or a reply. I guess you do not see the ridiculousness of this position, either. God's not going to do or not do something because someone is praying to a Coke can to do or not do the same thing.

"Promoting" I will agree to, but "regurgitation" is another misstatement, in that it implies a lack of critical thought. Have you considered that it is possible to think about these issues critically and (GASP) not conclude as you have?! Perish the thought! Not agree with YOU? Heresy! ;>

"Proseletyzing" may not fit either, but it might. How would you distinguish what I am doing from what you are doing? Are we not both debating the truth of a matter? Why am I proseletyzing, but you aren't? Seems like a double standard.

Why do you say I haven't examined what I'm saying, but simply repeating what I've been told? This is not true, as a matter of fact.

It's raining in Georgia, also. Still sporadic, but the sporadic stuff started a couple of weeks ago after our Governor called for prayer, as well.

I seem to remember a "God-level performance" a while back. He promised not to do one of those again. You may have seen one of His reminders of His covenant-faithfulness in the sky.

Seems like New Orleans saw a lesser one, too, but when He does one of those, He gets called mean. Sinned against if you do, sinned against if you don't.

I wonder if God knows that He now needs to meet federal regulatory guidelines or risk having his license revoked. He must be cracking up at the sheer stupidity of those comments. (Psalm 2).

Personally, I'm ver...

It's raining in Georgia, also. Still sporadic, but the sporadic stuff started a couple of weeks ago after our Governor called for prayer, as well.

I seem to remember a "God-level performance" a while back. He promised not to do one of those again. You may have seen one of His reminders of His covenant-faithfulness in the sky.

Seems like New Orleans saw a lesser one, too, but when He does one of those, He gets called mean. Sinned against if you do, sinned against if you don't.

I wonder if God knows that He now needs to meet federal regulatory guidelines or risk having his license revoked. He must be cracking up at the sheer stupidity of those comments. (Psalm 2).

Personally, I'm very thankful for His kindness in responding to our prayers by sending some drought-relief.

These comments have gotten too long to address everything in the space
of 2000 characters so you'll have to point out anything
you want specifically addressed if I miss it.

Thunderscot, all of your comments are based upon an assumption that your god is real and you have not provided one thing to prove it. There are dozens of other belief systems floating around, what makes yours any better than theirs?

What makes you think the rock will hit the ground?

Through observation, experience, and a little application of reasoning.

Frankly, I think this whole rain thing that believers are jumping on is a desperate attempt at justification for their beliefs. Let them pray for and eff...

These comments have gotten too long to address everything in the space
of 2000 characters so you'll have to point out anything
you want specifically addressed if I miss it.

Thunderscot, all of your comments are based upon an assumption that your god is real and you have not provided one thing to prove it. There are dozens of other belief systems floating around, what makes yours any better than theirs?

What makes you think the rock will hit the ground?

Through observation, experience, and a little application of reasoning.

Frankly, I think this whole rain thing that believers are jumping on is a desperate attempt at justification for their beliefs. Let them pray for and effect something that can not possibly caused by some other outside source (like weather). Maybe thunderscot needs to pop over to WhyWontGodHealAmputees

AcesLucky--I cannot conceive of the inconceivable, so I'm not able to answer the question.

Oortcloud--Sorry for the length of these comments--It is hard to address these issues in a pithy format. Thanks for your patience.

I do assume that God is real. I have provided proof (not exclusively empirical), but if you *at the outset* refuse to consider proof that is not empirical, then you have assumed the conclusion in your premise.

Even considering the available empirical evidence, since you operate from a presupposition of an exclusively material universe, you could not possibly conclude a spiritual truth from empirical evidence.

Your presupposition of an exclusively material universe is...

AcesLucky--I cannot conceive of the inconceivable, so I'm not able to answer the question.

Oortcloud--Sorry for the length of these comments--It is hard to address these issues in a pithy format. Thanks for your patience.

I do assume that God is real. I have provided proof (not exclusively empirical), but if you *at the outset* refuse to consider proof that is not empirical, then you have assumed the conclusion in your premise.

Even considering the available empirical evidence, since you operate from a presupposition of an exclusively material universe, you could not possibly conclude a spiritual truth from empirical evidence.

Your presupposition of an exclusively material universe is unproven and unprovable and therefore inherently unscientific. It is in the nature of a religious dogma.

I don't oppose dogma *per se*, but when you pretend that I have them and you don't, I think you're being hypocritical.

The proofs for God are manifold, from the Creation, to His personal salvation of me and millions of others over the course of millenia, to the impossibility of the opposite proposition, etc.

I do not have space or time at present to compare Chrisitianity to other belief systems, but many such capable comparisons exist. Email me if you want a recommendation from me.

Thanks for answering the question, almost. You have told me what you have observed, but what makes you think it will do the same thing the next time you throw it? In other words, why do you think it will behave similarly? To probe deeper, how do you account for laws of logic?

Why do you feel that thanking God for answering prayers is a desparate attempt to justify our beliefs. Our faith wouldn't go away if God said, "No," or "Not right now?" Our faith does not rest on so trite a foundation. He's not a cosmic candy machine.

Many extraordinary things are prayed for and answered affirmatively, but how many millions of such instances would it take to "prove" the efficacy of prayer to you?

See... you simply try to confuse the issue by making one question every nuance of every thought. How is it real? How do I know? Does the falling tree make noise in an empty forrest? Who cares how deeply you inspect what a rock is, what the earth is, and what exactly is the definition of the collision that takes part between them.

Frankly is still comes down to a claim of god defined by the bible and proof that the bible is wrong, innaccurate, plagerized, and written by men, not god. Thus the source of religion is suspect. All the miracles of god are dimestore parlor tricks and while on one hand believers scream that there is all this evidence around just waiting to believed they cry "what d...

See... you simply try to confuse the issue by making one question every nuance of every thought. How is it real? How do I know? Does the falling tree make noise in an empty forrest? Who cares how deeply you inspect what a rock is, what the earth is, and what exactly is the definition of the collision that takes part between them.

Frankly is still comes down to a claim of god defined by the bible and proof that the bible is wrong, innaccurate, plagerized, and written by men, not god. Thus the source of religion is suspect. All the miracles of god are dimestore parlor tricks and while on one hand believers scream that there is all this evidence around just waiting to believed they cry "what does it take?!" when you ask for incontriverable evidence that cannot be mistaken for trickery or natural events found in nature.

To claim prayer caused rain is ridiculous. People attempt to attribute things to prayer and god that happen naturally all the time. This extends into healing, weather, who wins a football game, and even someone surviving a terrible accident. Sometimes people die of a splinter, sometimes they recover from serious illness and injury. It happens without prayer all the time. Sometimes wild and crazy shit happens. Sometimes its simply unexplainable. But to use that as an excuse to tag it as "god did it" is really just checking your brain at the door so you no longer have to do the work of rationalizing.

So to suggest prayer is responsible for it happening is simply theft. You are stealing natural cause and attributing it supernatural sources - simply to support a belief system that makes claims of the supernatural. It's a shell game of the mind where you claim you can do it, but then when tested make the claim that god was busy that day or didn't like the idea.

You believe because you want to believe and it sounds good to you, not because it is proven.

The quoted statement was in dispute of one of Oortcloud's implied premises. Namely, that Christian faith depends on immediate favorable answers to prayer. That is not the case, in fact. The Bible does not teach that, and it is not in any way a justification of Christian faith, and that was the context of my statement.

I don't know if the anti-Christian on here intentionally take things out of context in order to avoid following an argument to its logical end or what, but it seems to happen a lot.

Your question and following warning of sorts is peculiarly worded to me. I've made a couple of starts at a reply, but honestly, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you clarify? I don't...

The quoted statement was in dispute of one of Oortcloud's implied premises. Namely, that Christian faith depends on immediate favorable answers to prayer. That is not the case, in fact. The Bible does not teach that, and it is not in any way a justification of Christian faith, and that was the context of my statement.

I don't know if the anti-Christian on here intentionally take things out of context in order to avoid following an argument to its logical end or what, but it seems to happen a lot.

Your question and following warning of sorts is peculiarly worded to me. I've made a couple of starts at a reply, but honestly, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you clarify? I don't want to waste either our time answering something you're not saying or asking.

The quoted statement was in dispute of one of Oortcloud's implied
premises. Namely, that Christian faith depends on immediate favorable
answers to prayer
<snip>
I don't know if the anti-Christian on here intentionally take things out of context

Out of context? How can you take this out of context :

Mathew 17:20 (KJV) And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say
unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say
unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove;
and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

It says what it says. You simply have no valid argument to refute the fact tha...

The quoted statement was in dispute of one of Oortcloud's implied
premises. Namely, that Christian faith depends on immediate favorable
answers to prayer
<snip>
I don't know if the anti-Christian on here intentionally take things out of context

Out of context? How can you take this out of context :

Mathew 17:20 (KJV) And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say
unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say
unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove;
and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

It says what it says. You simply have no valid argument to refute the fact that this is blatently false. You can twist the meaning all you like, but the claim remains the same. "Nothing shall be impossible unto you" - move me a mountain, end suffering, move the moon, or heal the amputees of the world. No excuses.

Namely, that Christian faith depends on immediate favorable answers to prayer.

I guess I'm not seeing the part that says "god will get back to you in his time" or "submit to god and await his acceptance or denial of prayer". I think its pretty clear that it suggests that having faith will allow you to accomplish anything. The further example of moving a mountain tells us that there is no limit on what can be accomplished. I see no limitations or restrictions listed.

Nothing out of context here exept the excuses you come up with to protect your belief.

The Bible does not teach that, and it is not in any way a justification of Christian faith

Well hey, if you want to admit that prayer is really pretty meaningless to religion then I think we can both agree that we are finaly getting somewhere. I'll even agree that it can come in handy as a method of meditation - but a pipeline to god or a source of power - no.

AcesLucky--I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not purposefully misunderstanding me, but I'm starting to wonder.

My statement was a reply to Oortcloud's (I think...or maybe Ratilfar's) claim that Christianity rested on whether or not God answered all prayers immediately and favorably. *To that* I said "Our faith does not rest on trite a foundation." Is this too difficult?

And since you keep babbling about faith and reason's imagined incompatibility, you are taking my quote out of context.

I do not defend all faith as though it were disconnected from its object. Your faith in an all material world and in supremacy of your own reason is very unhelpful to you.

F...

AcesLucky--I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not purposefully misunderstanding me, but I'm starting to wonder.

My statement was a reply to Oortcloud's (I think...or maybe Ratilfar's) claim that Christianity rested on whether or not God answered all prayers immediately and favorably. *To that* I said "Our faith does not rest on trite a foundation." Is this too difficult?

And since you keep babbling about faith and reason's imagined incompatibility, you are taking my quote out of context.

I do not defend all faith as though it were disconnected from its object. Your faith in an all material world and in supremacy of your own reason is very unhelpful to you.

Faith is not, however, antithetical to reason, but is a necessary precondition. I've explained this elsewhere, and am sure you'll find and comment there, if you're going to.

Oortcloud--I wonder if you're joking now. In denying taking my quote out of context, you proceed to take others' quotes out of context.

How about this one:

"I am the door."

I guess you think that unless Jesus is really a door on hinges, our faith is unfounded?

It does not take a Christian to recognize the employment of a variety of well-known literary devices by many throughout the Bible, and our Lord, no less. He did, after all, create language, and is Himself called "the Word."

This is isn't a Christian/nonChristian thing. You can deny any truth at all in the Bible and still recognize the use of literary device to make a point.

What you may not recognize (based on what ...

Oortcloud--I wonder if you're joking now. In denying taking my quote out of context, you proceed to take others' quotes out of context.

How about this one:

"I am the door."

I guess you think that unless Jesus is really a door on hinges, our faith is unfounded?

It does not take a Christian to recognize the employment of a variety of well-known literary devices by many throughout the Bible, and our Lord, no less. He did, after all, create language, and is Himself called "the Word."

This is isn't a Christian/nonChristian thing. You can deny any truth at all in the Bible and still recognize the use of literary device to make a point.

What you may not recognize (based on what I've read) is that the moving of spiritual mountains is of far more dramatic consequence than tossing a little rock into a puddle.

And since you keep babbling about faith and reason's imagined incompatibility, you are taking my quote out of context.

I think the problem here is you are redifining religion and the bible to reflect your translation of it. It's called cherry picking.

Faith is not, however, antithetical to reason, but is a necessary precondition. I've explained this elsewhere

Can you give me a link to that? I'd love to read it.

It does not take a Christian to recognize the employment of a variety
of well-known literary devices by many throughout the Bible, and our
Lord, no less.

Apparently it does. Tell me, is the concept of original sin simply a metephore? Th...

And since you keep babbling about faith and reason's imagined incompatibility, you are taking my quote out of context.

I think the problem here is you are redifining religion and the bible to reflect your translation of it. It's called cherry picking.

Faith is not, however, antithetical to reason, but is a necessary precondition. I've explained this elsewhere

Can you give me a link to that? I'd love to read it.

It does not take a Christian to recognize the employment of a variety
of well-known literary devices by many throughout the Bible, and our
Lord, no less.

Apparently it does. Tell me, is the concept of original sin simply a metephore? The story of Moses? Noah? Jesus Christ? By what application do you use to determine what is a metaphor and what is a direct truth? Seems to me that you pick and choose dependant upon how it serves your system of belief.

He did, after all, create language, and is Himself
called "the Word."

That would be your faith at work again. I'd say "The word" was written by primitive men in an attempt to create answers to things not understood in their world. As far as the source of language - that would be created by mankind in their attempts to communicate and express wants, needs, and desires. It also helped to formulate dominance and hunting. I'm not an expert in anthropology and language, but I think that should be close enough for the breadth of this topic.

Oortcloud--I wonder if you're joking now

No, I find no humor in this at all. I'm, in fact, horrified that intelligent people can continue to delude themselves in the face of so much evidence that disproves their beliefs. It really bothers me that so many people will go to such links to reject anything that challenges their faith. Even when forced to accept the reality of the proof they still continue to deny it by claiming "out of context" or "metephors" or by altering definitions.

I think the problem here is you are redifining religion and the bible to reflect your translation

What am I cherry-picking? My definitions are very standard definitions, very widely accepted for a very very long time. So, you'll have trouble making the "redefining" charge stick.

Offer your definitions, and let's analyze them. I'm game.

I'll start: Religion is the duty man owes to His Creator. The Bible is God's Word, His inscripturated verbal self-revelation.

Now, let's hear your's. Then we we can have some sustained logical engagement of the competing defs. Sound fair?

Can you give me a link to that?

Sorry I don't know how to make it g...

I think the problem here is you are redifining religion and the bible to reflect your translation

What am I cherry-picking? My definitions are very standard definitions, very widely accepted for a very very long time. So, you'll have trouble making the "redefining" charge stick.

Offer your definitions, and let's analyze them. I'm game.

I'll start: Religion is the duty man owes to His Creator. The Bible is God's Word, His inscripturated verbal self-revelation.

Now, let's hear your's. Then we we can have some sustained logical engagement of the competing defs. Sound fair?

Can you give me a link to that?

Sorry I don't know how to make it go to the pinpoint location: http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/86CBC2A2-9491-45DF-B60E-72F6FEE8CBFE/

Apparently it does.

Really? So you think Jesus really thought he was an Anderson Door? You really can't tell whether He meant that literally or figuratively?

original sin simply a metephore?

No.

story of Moses?

No.

Noah?

No, uh. (couldn't resist a little corniness)

Jesus Christ?

No.

what is a metaphor and what is a direct truth?

I think you mean figurative language (or other literary device) versus literal language. Metaphors may be direct truths. (e.g.--"I am the door.")

I'm really not inclined to a discussion of how to read. There are a lot of excellent grammar school textbooks that should assist you with this. Email me if you're interested in my recommendations.

you pick and choose dependant upon how it serves your system of belief.

While I do not claim a flawless interpretive ability, or even close, I do claim to be able to generally tell when an author intends his words literally or figuratively. This is a common exercise in the language arts--one in which even small children engage daily.

I'm out of space, and it's bed time. Goodnight.

<having purused your link>
I am unsure why you would provide that link? It actually underscores how ridiculous and blinded your claims really are. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually quite happy you provided it because it shows me that I am not the only one to recognize you for the irrational and circular using zealot you have become.

Rather than underscore your claim that faith is a precondition to reason it proves that your understanding of faith is complete rubbish. I rather think that you are jealous of the power behind reason and rational thought based upon observation that you try to redefine faith in your own mind so that it is not so dependent upon the act of blind acceptance. Your at...

<having purused your link>
I am unsure why you would provide that link? It actually underscores how ridiculous and blinded your claims really are. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually quite happy you provided it because it shows me that I am not the only one to recognize you for the irrational and circular using zealot you have become.

Rather than underscore your claim that faith is a precondition to reason it proves that your understanding of faith is complete rubbish. I rather think that you are jealous of the power behind reason and rational thought based upon observation that you try to redefine faith in your own mind so that it is not so dependent upon the act of blind acceptance. Your attempt to juxtopose faith and deduction is simply oxymoronic.

I'll start: Religion is the duty man owes to His Creator. The Bible is God's Word, His inscripturated verbal self-revelation.

See my comments on the value of the bible as presented as support to faith. While the whole clip bears noting my comments beginning with the quote "back it up" is the relevant part.

No, uh. (couldn't resist a little corniness)

I enjoy a good laugh, that was cute. However on the subject of metaphors vs being literal - many people, noteably more and more chrisitans, are coming to accept the ridiculousnss of accepting many biblical stories as literal. Original sin, Noah, Moses, etc, are really being accepted as metephorical stories. Once you examine the reality, science, and logic behind the story then the only way to preserve the sanctity of the bible is to accept such stories as metephorical.

I simply do not have enough room to discuss this further. There are ample sources on the internet that discuss this. Personally I think it merely one more step to accepting the bible as fictional.

it proves that your understanding of faith is complete rubbish.

"Complete rubbish." Is that your argument against my view? Or will you actually engage it with logic and reason?

Oh, wait, here's the answer:

you are jealous of the power behind reason and rational thought

You will now extend your God-playing by presuming to know my inner motives.

There *is* power behind reason and rational thought, which is why I employ it. The power behind it is God Himself, who has created an orderly universe with laws of logic capable of aiding us in knowing Him and His creation, and enjoying and stewarding both.

Faith and acceptance need not be blind, though I've yet to se...

it proves that your understanding of faith is complete rubbish.

"Complete rubbish." Is that your argument against my view? Or will you actually engage it with logic and reason?

Oh, wait, here's the answer:

you are jealous of the power behind reason and rational thought

You will now extend your God-playing by presuming to know my inner motives.

There *is* power behind reason and rational thought, which is why I employ it. The power behind it is God Himself, who has created an orderly universe with laws of logic capable of aiding us in knowing Him and His creation, and enjoying and stewarding both.

Faith and acceptance need not be blind, though I've yet to see you or others offer a reason for your blind faith in your omniscient Reason. The irony is that reason itself will not aid your dogmatic belief in its all-sufficiency.

Please, *show us* how my position on the relation of faith and reason is "oxymoronic."

You're full of assertions, and utterly void of logical reasoning in support of those assertions.

Original sin, Noah, Moses, etc, are really being accepted as metephorical stories

No, they're not. There are some pathetic secularist wannabees masquerading as Christians who want to look cool to the enemies of Christ, but as a whole, this is far from the Christian view. On a big huge overwhelming majority whole.

Once you examine the reality, science, and logic behind the story then
the only way to preserve the sanctity of the bible is to accept such
stories as metephorical.

I've seen no evidence that you have performed said examination. You may have referenced a few pathetic "let's slam the Bible" websites, but that's a far cry from "examining" anything, much less the "reality, science and logic." Perhaps you have, but I've not seen any evidence of it here.