Is praying for someone to die a Christian practice?

[dittohead not!]

Pastor prays for death (http://www.ocregister.com/news/church-group-drake-1811239-huckabee-death)

BUENA PARK – The pastor of First Southern Baptist Church fired off an email to supporters this week saying they should pray against two adversaries by reciting a lengthy Bible passage that includes the phrase, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.''


Drake said in his Tuesday statement. His supporters should recite Psalms 109:1-31 that also includes, “children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

I guess it must be, if it comes from the Bible.

[SpringRain]

I notice that Christians seem to worship their god but they don't think he is very wise or very intelligent. I mean not only do they think god is too stupid to remove a particular thorn in the side of good people so they have to pray for it; but they don't trust that when their time comes be it from accident, cancer, or other, he must mean instead to fight "going to his everloving heaven."

And for those of you who will spout freewill as why god doesn't interfere; then I propose that praying for him to do it (shorten the live of an individual) would be against the freewill of the person who is being "killed" and would be a wasted prayer if god holds to that edict of freewill.

[Ethos]

I suppose it depends on the intent. If I had a relative with cancer whose final days were filled with extreme pain, it might not be wrong to pray for a swift death.

Obviously it would also depend on the particular brand of Christianity.

Ethos

[SpringRain]

I suppose it depends on the intent. If I had a relative with cancer whose final days were filled with extreme pain, it might not be wrong to pray for a swift death.

Obviously it would also depend on the particular brand of Christianity.

Ethos

I can see that as a way to validate the intent; but darn no soon do I type this that I am reminded that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

[Atticus]

All Christian prayers should end, "not my will but thine be done." And they should be made humbly, not as a threat.

[mataj]

Prayers, like chickens, come home to roost.

[dittohead not!]

If I had a relative with cancer whose final days were filled with extreme pain, it might not be wrong to pray for a swift death.


Wouldn't that be a prayer to end suffering, rather than to ask god to smite your enemies?

[Atticus]

Wouldn't that be a prayer to end suffering, rather than to ask god to smite your enemies?Praying to smite your enemies is not a practice that I would endorse, but some Christians do it. Unlike Muslims, who often see un-Islamic practices in others and say "they aren't Muslims," Christians don't have that option. But I for one wouldn't approve.

For a literary reflection on this topic, see Mark Twain's War Prayer (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html).

[dittohead not!]

Praying to smite your enemies is not a practice that I would endorse, but some Christians do it. Unlike Muslims, who often see un-Islamic practices in others and say "they aren't Muslims," Christians don't have that option. But I for one wouldn't approve.

For a literary reflection on this topic, see Mark Twain's War Prayer (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html).

Either Allah isn't in to granting prayers uttered by his fanatic followers, or he isn't as powerful as they think. We infidels are still here, aren't we?

The first part of Mark Twain's story sounded a lot like our forces getting ready to invade Iraq, didn't it? There is always sense in Twain's words, it seems to me.

[serenity]

Praying to smite your enemies is not a practice that I would endorse, but some Christians do it. Unlike Muslims, who often see un-Islamic practices in others and say "they aren't Muslims," Christians don't have that option. But I for one wouldn't approve.

I believe you're being too kind, as is your excellent tendency.

But praying for somebody to die, for their wife to become a widow and their child fatherless (these latter two arguably as bad or worse than the ill-will prayed for upon the unhappy subject himself), is not simply questionable.

It's outright moral degeneracy.

[Atticus]

Either Allah isn't in to granting prayers uttered by his fanatic followers, or he isn't as powerful as they think. We infidels are still here, aren't we?Muslims end all prayers (and most other discourse, including the declaration of an idle wish) with the words "Inshau-allah," which means "if God wills it." Submission to the will of God is a very basic tenet of both faiths, so it would appear Allah isn't quite so happy with those fanatics as they thought. Take a look at this article, which suggests that the blame for the many thousands of Muslims killed in places like Iraq will go to bin Laden, when all is said and done: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1660197,00.html
Islamic history will remember Osama bin Laden as a bad Muslim. Islamic canon is formal: a Muslim leader must do everything he can within his power to prevent fitna — civil war between Muslims. And that is exactly what Bin Laden has done in Iraq, drawing us into a war and creating the circumstances for Shia and Sunni to kill each other. Whether or not al-Qaeda is responsible for every market truck bomb in Iraq or not, it will be laid at bin Laden's feet.The first part of Mark Twain's story sounded a lot like our forces getting ready to invade Iraq, didn't it? There is always sense in Twain's words, it seems to me.He wrote it in the years after the Spanish-American War--go figure.

[dittohead not!]

Muslims end all prayers (and most other discourse, including the declaration of an idle wish) with the words "Inshau-allah," which means "if God wills it." Submission to the will of God is a very basic tenet of both faiths, so it would appear Allah isn't quite so happy with those fanatics as they thought. Take a look at this article, which suggests that the blame for the many thousands of Muslims killed in places like Iraq will go to bin Laden, when all is said and done: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1660197,00.html
He wrote it in the years after the Spanish-American War--go figure.

Let's hope at least some of them blame Bin Laden, and not the United States. They seem to be still mad about the Crusades of the middle ages. Just think how long they will be mad about the invasion of Iraq!

[SpringRain]

Let's hope at least some of them blame Bin Laden, and not the United States. They seem to be still mad about the Crusades of the middle ages. Just think how long they will be mad about the invasion of Iraq!

My thoughts are both bin Laden AND the USA will/should be blamed. I notice you said "some of them" blame bid Laden. I'd say "all of them" blame "some of it (the death, destruction, violence) on bid Laden."

[Cedars]

Pastor prays for death (http://www.ocregister.com/news/church-group-drake-1811239-huckabee-death)






I guess it must be, if it comes from the Bible.
While it is a very human trait to wish to dispose of one's enemies (which does not make it right by any means), in Christianity we are called to love, not hate.


All Christian prayers should end, "not my will but thine be done."
Exactly.

[Cedars]

I notice that Christians seem to worship their god but they don't think he is very wise or very intelligent. I mean not only do they think god is too stupid to remove a particular thorn in the side of good people so they have to pray for it; but they don't trust that when their time comes be it from accident, cancer, or other, he must mean instead to fight "going to his everloving heaven."

And for those of you who will spout freewill as why god doesn't interfere; then I propose that praying for him to do it (shorten the live of an individual) would be against the freewill of the person who is being "killed" and would be a wasted prayer if god holds to that edict of freewill.
You are stereotyping, which does not speak well for your own conclusions here.

[Atticus]

My thoughts are both bin Laden AND the USA will/should be blamed. I notice you said "some of them" blame bid Laden. I'd say "all of them" blame "some of it (the death, destruction, violence) on bid Laden."I'd say that's hard to tell, but "all" is very large number. The article I quoted suggests that in the terms of Islam itself, bin Laden is to blame (even if the US is also to blame). The difference is that Muslims are supposed to know better, whereas non-Muslims, being in "the house of war," are not as important.

[SpringRain]

You are stereotyping, which does not speak well for your own conclusions here.

I am not stereotyping. I am generalizing however.

[SpringRain]

I'd say that's hard to tell, but "all" is very large number. The article I quoted suggests that in the terms of Islam itself, bin Laden is to blame (even if the US is also to blame). The difference is that Muslims are supposed to know better, whereas non-Muslims, being in "the house of war," are not as important.

OIC, point taken.

[Cedars]

I notice that Christians seem to worship their god but they don't think he is very wise or very intelligent. I mean not only do they think god is too stupid to remove a particular thorn in the side of good people so they have to pray for it; but they don't trust that when their time comes be it from accident, cancer, or other, he must mean instead to fight "going to his everloving heaven."

And for those of you who will spout freewill as why god doesn't interfere; then I propose that praying for him to do it (shorten the live of an individual) would be against the freewill of the person who is being "killed" and would be a wasted prayer if god holds to that edict of freewill.

I am not stereotyping. I am generalizing however.
Your generalizing turned into stereotyping. You are tarnishing all Christians with the same brush -- THAT is stereotyping. Most Christians ascribe omniscience to God (that, BTW, is an example of generalizing), so your erroneous assumptions that we think God is unwise or unintelligent or "too stupid" is in bad form -- not to mention that your conclusions are not based on fact but your own bias(es).

[Cedars]

Let's hope at least some of them blame Bin Laden, and not the United States. They seem to be still mad about the Crusades of the middle ages. Just think how long they will be mad about the invasion of Iraq!
If it is true that Muslims in general are "still mad" about the Crusades, then those Muslims have obviously "forgotten" their own part in it. While I do not excuse the behavior of some of the Crusaders, neither do I excuse those Muslims for persecuting Christians and destroying Christian churches and other property. Many Muslims seem to forget or not know that the Crusades were in response to their own persecution of Christians and destruction of Christian property. They also seem to forget or not know that there were Arab Christians in the Middle East (that is where Christianity began, after all) centuries before Mohammed was even born.

[serenity]

All i can say is that it's time for people to get over it. I don't how long is the proper, let's call it grieving period. I can understand Palestinian anger, for example.

But once eight hundred or a thousand years have passed...time to move on.

[SpringRain]

Your generalizing turned into stereotyping. You are tarnishing all Christians with the same brush -- THAT is stereotyping. Most Christians ascribe omniscience to God (that, BTW, is an example of generalizing), so your erroneous assumptions that we think God is unwise or unintelligent or "too stupid" is in bad form -- not to mention that your conclusions are not based on fact but your own bias(es).

I disagree with you whole premise that it is an unfair bias. Every christian I know certainly runs to the doctor to have his/her life saved. Now this doesn't surprise me with non-christians, but for christians it seems to be a lack of faith that heaven exists, heaven is good, or (topic here) that god is wise enough to know what he was doing; when he determined it was time for a heart attack, or whatever that would have resulted in death if medical industry had not been called in to interrupt it. So, I may have a bias, but it is based on facts for most christians. I believe the only christians not included would be Jehovah Witnesses.

If you are a true christian, I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to go against god's calling you to him. You all must think he is stupid or you wouldn't fight it all so hard and for so long (as in the case of illnesses like cancer.)

Or so is my assessment of the situation.

To clarify, I believe that you THINK he is wise, but you all don't trust that he is wise by your behavior.

[Cedars]

All i can say is that it's time for people to get over it. I don't how long is the proper, let's call it grieving period. I can understand Palestinian anger, for example.

But once eight hundred or a thousand years have passed...time to move on.

I agree ... time to move on.

[Cedars]

I disagree with you whole premise that it is an unfair bias. Every christian I know certainly runs to the doctor to have his/her life saved. Now this doesn't surprise me with non-christians, but for christians it seems to be a lack of faith that heaven exists, heaven is good, or (topic here) that god is wise enough to know what he was doing; when he determined it was time for a heart attack, or whatever that would have resulted in death if medical industry had not been called in to interrupt it. So, I may have a bias, but it is based on facts for most christians. I believe the only christians not included would be Jehovah Witnesses.

If you are a true christian, I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to go against god's calling you to him. You all must think he is stupid or you wouldn't fight it all so hard and for so long (as in the case of illnesses like cancer.)

Or so is my assessment of the situation.

To clarify, I believe that you THINK he is wise, but you all don't trust that he is wise by your behavior.
Going to the doctor does not show lack of faith in God. It shows that we use the intelligence and the common sense God gave us.

It is my understanding that Jehovah Witnesses do not believe Jesus is divine -- and thus, they would not be Christians.

[SpringRain]

Going to the doctor does not show lack of faith in God. It shows that we use the intelligence and the common sense God gave us.



I disagree with your assessment. Going to the doctor to correct a "error" by god, then one must think god is fallible and one is more intelligent than God.
Or one would pray to god to make it better and that would be enough. To go to a doctor to save one's life seems utterly against any belief in any type of heaven.

I know if I believed in heaven, a loving god, and wanted to go to heaven as so many christians claim to believe; then I sure wouldn't want my time away from my lord to be lengthened artificially.

But you are free to rationalize delaying time to heaven any way you choose.

[USViking]

Any mention of Mark Twain in a religious thread
should include selections from his great atheistic
Masterpiece Letters from the Earth:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

Here is one:


It is curious -- the way the human mind works. The Christian begins with this straight proposition, this definite proposition, this inflexible and uncompromising proposition: God is all-knowing, and all-powerful.

This being the case, nothing can happen without his knowing beforehand that it is going to happen; nothing happens without his permission; nothing can happen that he chooses to prevent.

That is definite enough, isn't it? It makes the Creator distinctly responsible for everything that happens, doesn't it?

The Christian concedes it in that italicized sentence. Concedes it with feeling, with enthusiasm.

Then, having thus made the Creator responsible for all those pains and diseases and miseries above enumerated, and which he could have prevented, the gifted Christian blandly calls him Our Father!

I think in light of the above it is fair to say that the
The War Prayer is a parody upon both God and Man.

The words spake by God's messenger in that work do
not really represent Twain's view of God. They represent
Twain's view of how the human conscience should more
rightly consider what the human being desires.

If you want to know what Twain really thinks a God
would have to be like from The War Prayer you do
not read the sermon, you need read only this:



God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest!

[Atticus]

Samuel Clemens was a great cynic late in life. But then, he's lost his wife, his daugher, and his fortune in the space of just two years or so. He had to go live in Europe for a time because it was cheaper to live there, then. He became the first stand-up comic (making long tours of "lyceums" lectures during the winter months) at the turn of the century--he was in his seventies at the time. That would make a cynic of nearly anyone.

[SpringRain]

Samuel Clemens was a great cynic late in life. But then, he's lost his wife, his daugher, and his fortune in the space of just two years or so. He had to go live in Europe for a time because it was cheaper to live there, then. He became the first stand-up comic (making long tours of "lyceums" lectures during the winter months) at the turn of the century--he was in his seventies at the time. That would make a cynic of nearly anyone.

Or perhaps he finally realized his foolishness.

[Atticus]

Or perhaps he finally realized his foolishness.Maybe. In any case, his personal story plays heavily in his later literary production. He's best remembered as a humorist, but after about 1900 he's pretty bitter. I guess being funny is foolishness and being biter is wise? Let us all, then, be fools.

[SpringRain]

Maybe. In any case, his personal story plays heavily in his later literary production. He's best remembered as a humorist, but after about 1900 he's pretty bitter. I guess being funny is foolishness and being biter is wise? Let us all, then, be fools.

You make a correlation; funny=believer and bitter=non-believer that may not be accurate. And to my way of thinking if he had never believed; perhaps he wouldn't have felt as bitter when he realized there was nothing to believe in, or that what he believed in didn't live up to the expectations that had been preached and seemed instead to betray/hate him.

For example if a child is promised a trip to Disneyworld and then it falls through; he will be dramatically more dissappointed/bitter than if he never believed he was going to go in the first place.

[USViking]

Samuel Clemens was a great cynic late in life. But then, he's lost his wife, his daugher, and his fortune in the space of just two years or so. He had to go live in Europe for a time because it was cheaper to live there, then. He became the first stand-up comic (making long tours of "lyceums" lectures during the winter months) at the turn of the century--he was in his seventies at the time. That would make a cynic of nearly anyone.
Perhaps you are correct that personal sorrow was
what turned him against God.

However, the cynicism was present at the time
The Adeventures of Huckleberry Finn was written,
as seen by the title character's comments on the
subject of heaven.

[Cedars]

I disagree with your assessment. Going to the doctor to correct a "error" by god, then one must think god is fallible and one is more intelligent than God.
Or one would pray to god to make it better and that would be enough. To go to a doctor to save one's life seems utterly against any belief in any type of heaven.

I know if I believed in heaven, a loving god, and wanted to go to heaven as so many christians claim to believe; then I sure wouldn't want my time away from my lord to be lengthened artificially.

But you are free to rationalize delaying time to heaven any way you choose.
It is evident you do not understand Christianity, then, because Christians do not believe that God (who is Omniscient) even makes errors; and therefore, your whole line of reasoning is flawed from basing your stance on this fallacy. God does not forbid us or even suggest to us that we not go to a doctor or that going to a doctor shows a lack of faith; so upon what do you base your belief that going to a doctor shows disbelief or lack of faith in God?

[SpringRain]

It is evident you do not understand Christianity, then, because Christians do not believe that God (who is Omniscient) even makes errors; and therefore, your whole line of reasoning is flawed from basing your stance on this fallacy. God does not forbid us or even suggest to us that we not go to a doctor or that going to a doctor shows a lack of faith; so upon what do you base your belief that going to a doctor shows disbelief or lack of faith in God?

No, it is simply evident that I come to different conclusions about Christianity, not that I don't understand it.

[Atticus]

You make a correlation; funny=believer and bitter=non-believer that may not be accurate. Actually, I didn't make that correlation--you did in your earlier post. And to my way of thinking if he had never believed; perhaps he wouldn't have felt as bitter when he realized there was nothing to believe in, or that what he believed in didn't live up to the expectations that had been preached and seemed instead to betray/hate him.Or, perhaps he was just angry and depressed--and attacking traditional notions that give comfort seemed appropriate--like an old man who keeps your ball when it goes into his yard because, well, it's a source of fun he can no longer enjoy.

But all this is a terrible malign to Clemens, whose work stands for itself better without the detraction of my poor biographical criticism. I'm sorry I brought it up. I intended for the work to stand on its own--not become a thread tangent on the psyche of its author.

[Cedars]

No, it is simply evident that I come to different conclusions about Christianity, not that I don't understand it.
Again, what do you base your "different" conclusions on, then? In other words, why do you assume that going to a doctor shows disbelief or lack of faith in God? If your position is merely that the going shows lack of faith, then why would you go to a lawyer (as it would show lack of faith in God for your legal problems)? or a financial investor (as it would show your lack of faith in God regarding your finances)? or a dentist (as it would show your lack of faith in God)?, etc. etc. (you could go on and list every profession)? Why single out doctors?

[SpringRain]

Actually, I didn't make that correlation--you did in your earlier post.

True, but since I made the correlation and you responded to it; it seemed a natural implication to the original comment made by me.

Or, perhaps he was just angry and depressed--and attacking traditional notions that give comfort seemed appropriate--like an old man who keeps your ball when it goes into his yard because, well, it's a source of fun he can no longer enjoy.

But all this is a terrible malign to Clemens, whose work stands for itself better without the detraction of my poor biographical criticism. I'm sorry I brought it up. I intended for the work to stand on its own--not become a thread tangent on the psyche of its author.

Fair enough. My history regarding him isn't excellent either and you are right we are way off topic.

[SpringRain]

Again, what do you base your "different" conclusions on, then? In other words, why do you assume that going to a doctor shows disbelief or lack of faith in God? If your position is merely that the going shows lack of faith, then why would you go to a lawyer (as it would show lack of faith in God for your legal problems)? or a financial investor (as it would show your lack of faith in God regarding your finances)? or a dentist (as it would show your lack of faith in God)?, etc. etc. (you could go on and list every profession)? Why single out doctors?

By following an answer question as follows. I will set in the answers I believe most christians would make up to the final question; because as the final question shows up the logical answer based on all the other answers is directly opposite of the reality.

1. Do you believe in God? yes
2. Do you believe in JC? yes
3. Do you believe JC when he says God is love/loves you? yes
4. Do you believe in heaven? yes
5. Do you believe heaven is a form of utopian everlife in God's grace? yes
6. Do you want to go to heaven? yes
7. You are about to have a massive heart attack; do you want to go to heaven?

See the problem; Jesus taught nothing if not to be unafraid of death, to trust his father, and to know he is love. Yet Christians more than any other religious group avoids death at amazing costs.

[Cedars]

By following an answer question as follows. I will set in the answers I believe most christians would make up to the final question; because as the final question shows up the logical answer based on all the other answers is directly opposite of the reality.

1. Do you believe in God? yes
2. Do you believe in JC? yes
3. Do you believe JC when he says God is love/loves you? yes
4. Do you believe in heaven? yes
5. Do you believe heaven is a form of utopian everlife in God's grace? yes
6. Do you want to go to heaven? yes
7. You are about to have a massive heart attack; do you want to go to heaven?

See the problem; Jesus taught nothing if not to be unafraid of death, to trust his father, and to know he is love. Yet Christians more than any other religious group avoids death at amazing costs.
I am not sure I am following your logic. The obvious answer to number 7 is "yes" as well. Why would you not want to go to heaven, especially if you answered yes to the preceding six questions?

Catholic Christians believe that "[L]ife and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good." (CCC 2288) It is for this reason that we go to doctors, not because we lack faith in God but because we take care of the bodies God gave (gifted) us.

Being a physician is an honorable profession. "Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance." (CCC 2288) It seems your position is merely that going to a doctor shows lack of faith; and again, I ask, then, why would you go to a lawyer (as it would show lack of faith in God for your legal problems)? or a financial investor (as it would show your lack of faith in God regarding your finances)? or a teacher (as it would show your lack of faith regarding your learning)? or a dentist (as it would show your lack of faith in God)?, etc. etc. (you could go on and list every profession)? Again, why single out only the doctors? Are you only concerned with death and not life?

[SpringRain]

By following an answer question as follows. I will set in the answers I believe most christians would make up to the final question; because as the final question shows up the logical answer based on all the other answers is directly opposite of the reality.

1. Do you believe in God? yes
2. Do you believe in JC? yes
3. Do you believe JC when he says God is love/loves you? yes
4. Do you believe in heaven? yes
5. Do you believe heaven is a form of utopian everlife in God's grace? yes
6. Do you want to go to heaven? yes
7. You are about to have a massive heart attack; do you want to go to heaven?



No, Cedars, the answer to 7 is rarely yes for an American christian; usually it is no take me to the hospital before its "too late". Or perhaps my mistake is to rephrase #7 ...got to heaven right now or the hospital to be kept alive?

[SpringRain]

Catholic Christians believe that "[L]ife and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good." (CCC 2288) It is for this reason that we go to doctors, not because we lack faith in God but because we take care of the bodies God gave (gifted) us.
So you take the beliefs of the church over the written word of God and Jesus? Perhaps I am wrong as I have not memorized the bibles; but I cannot recall anyplace where the bible suggests avoiding death by use of medical assistance.

Being a physician is an honorable profession. "Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance." (CCC 2288)
Yes, I notice this quote is from the church not the bible.

I wasn't judging the profession of physicians as dishonorable; though I do believe that quite a bit. None the less; honorability is subjective.

[Cedars]

No, Cedars, the answer to 7 is rarely yes for an American christian; usually it is no take me to the hospital before its "too late". Or perhaps my mistake is to rephrase #7 ...got to heaven right now or the hospital to be kept alive?
My answer to #7 is yes. Any Christian who truly follows his or her faith will also answer yes to #7. That is not to say that we do not harbor an instinct for life, but faith can overcome any obstacle in our path.

[SpringRain]

My answer to #7 is yes. Any Christian who truly follows his or her faith will also answer yes to #7. That is not to say that we do not harbor an instinct for life, but faith can overcome any obstacle in our path.

Then you are unusual which is proven by the number of christians trying to beat cancer, overcome heart attacks, and more.

[Cedars]

So you take the beliefs of the church over the written word of God and Jesus?
The beliefs of the Catholic Church are of the written AND spoken word of God. ("Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" 2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Perhaps I am wrong as I have not memorized the bibles; but I cannot recall anyplace where the bible suggests avoiding death by use of medical assistance.
The Bible teaches us to have faith but it does not teach us to avoid doctors. You certainly have not provided any basis from scripture for your OWN ideas.

Yes, I notice this quote is from the church not the bible.
The Church IS the authority commissioned by Christ; it is the pillar and ground of truth. ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15)

I wasn't judging the profession of physicians as dishonorable; though I do believe that quite a bit. None the less; honorability is subjective.
You don't believe that the profession of physicians is dishonorable, yet you don't believe people should use them?

[Cedars]

Then you are unusual which is proven by the number of christians trying to beat cancer, overcome heart attacks, and more.
No, I am not unusual. If I found I had breast cancer, I would go to the doctor to see what could be done about it. It does not mean that I don't have faith in God because, ultimately, that is where my trust is placed -- in God. But I do believe that God wants us to take care of our bodies as best we can. That does not mean that we do not pray and ask God for help. Ultimately, the matter rests in God's hands, no matter what -- but I must still take care of the body God gave me regardless. To not go to the doctor would be like me not working and expecting God to provide me food anyway, even though I do nothing for it when I am able. Your philosophy makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Nor have you provided any biblical proof of your own belief.

[Cedars]

Or perhaps my mistake is to rephrase #7 ...got to heaven right now or the hospital to be kept alive?
And why do you assume that it is up to the physician on whether you will be kept alive or not? It is up to God. If God has deemed that our time on earth is up, then our time on earth will be up no matter what the physician tries to do. People do die, you know, even under a physician's care.

[SpringRain]

The beliefs of the Catholic Church are of the written AND spoken word of God. ("Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" 2 Thessalonians 2:15).


The Bible teaches us to have faith but it does not teach us to avoid doctors. You certainly have not provided any basis from scripture for your OWN ideas.


The Church IS the authority commissioned by Christ; it is the pillar and ground of truth. ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15)


You don't believe that the profession of physicians is dishonorable, yet you don't believe people should use them?

I did not say people shouldn't use them, I said it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. So I am saying that christians that use medical means to prolong their lifes don't really believe the garbage they spew and are hypocrits in my eyes. Since not all people are christians; I have no hypocrisy issues with non-christians going to a doctor to extend his/her life.

[Atticus]

Honestly, this idea that Christians are somehow barred from seeking medical attention seems a little silly to me. Just because we are to look forward to heaven, we also have work to do here on earth. Heart attacks can be transformative experiences--they can make us more empathetic, they can get us to end unhealthy habits, they can bring us closer to God within our walks here on earth. The idea that we should HOPE that a heart attack (or anything else) would be fatal is robbing God of His servant, should He continue to use us here.

Heaven is a long, long time. The idea that we should seek to avoid our continued service to God (should He wish to save us through the abilities of medicine) by avoiding medical care might very well be defying His wishes rather than acceding to them.

Taken to an extreme, Christians would have to step frequently in front of trains, crawl on high ledges, and eat massive quantities of butter in order to uphold their faith. :shrug:

[Cedars]

I did not say people shouldn't use them, I said it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Please specify WHERE in scripture it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

[SpringRain]

And why do you assume that it is up to the physician on whether you will be kept alive or not? It is up to God. If God has deemed that our time on earth is up, then our time on earth will be up no matter what the physician tries to do. People do die, you know, even under a physician's care.

If it is up to god and not the physician then why go to the physician? Why not accept what god seemed to intend and just wait and see if you survive or not? Truly embrace god's destiny for you?

As for the CCC being the word of god. . . well, I don't think so.

[Cedars]

Honestly, this idea that Christians are somehow barred from seeking medical attention seems a little silly to me. Just because we are to look forward to heaven, we also have work to do here on earth. Heart attacks can be transformative experiences--they can make us more empathetic, they can get us to end unhealthy habits, they can bring us closer to God within our walks here on earth. The idea that we should HOPE that a heart attack (or anything else) would be fatal is robbing God of His servant, should He continue to use us here.

Heaven is a long, long time. The idea that we should seek to avoid our continued service to God (should He wish to save us through the abilities of medicine) by avoiding medical care might very well be defying His wishes rather than acceding to them.

Taken to an extreme, Christians would have to step frequently in front of trains, crawl on high ledges, and eat massive quantities of butter in order to uphold their faith. :shrug:
Amen! Well said, Atticus.

[SpringRain]

Please specify WHERE in scripture it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I already mentioned the gist of it. I cannot and wouldnot quote scripture; I've already said that. And I sure am not going to browse it to find specific quotes. But just because I cannot quote it doesn't mean I didn't understand it when I read it. But no matter how inflexible the bible may be to one reading it without ties to anything but one's own comprehension; religions deem it necessary to simultaneously worship the word and modify it through interpretation to suit their purposes.

I see now that you and I cannot come to any type of agreement here. Not only are you christian, you are an apparently devout catholic. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about how this conversation will proceed. My mind sure won't be altered by someone such as you; I have no doubt the inverse is also true. So. . . Good night, sleep tight.

[Cedars]

If it is up to god and not the physician then why go to the physician? Why not accept what god seemed to intend and just wait and see if you survive or not? Truly embrace god's destiny for you?

Why go to the physician? Because we do not know whether our time is up or not, we should continue to do our daily service to God -- just as the physician would be doing his by helping us out. We are trusting in God regardless of whether the physician prolongs our lives or not. Because as I said before, it is God who knows when our time on earth is ended -- and when our time is up, it is up -- no matter what we or the physician may do.

[SpringRain]

Honestly, this idea that Christians are somehow barred from seeking medical attention seems a little silly to me. Just because we are to look forward to heaven, we also have work to do here on earth. Heart attacks can be transformative experiences--they can make us more empathetic, they can get us to end unhealthy habits, they can bring us closer to God within our walks here on earth. The idea that we should HOPE that a heart attack (or anything else) would be fatal is robbing God of His servant, should He continue to use us here.

Heaven is a long, long time. The idea that we should seek to avoid our continued service to God (should He wish to save us through the abilities of medicine) by avoiding medical care might very well be defying His wishes rather than acceding to them.

Taken to an extreme, Christians would have to step frequently in front of trains, crawl on high ledges, and eat massive quantities of butter in order to uphold their faith. :shrug:

:biting tongue: I would probably be banned if I responded honestly to this post. Time for me to step away from this topic. Good night, Atticus.

[Soren]

Again, what do you base your "different" conclusions on, then? In other words, why do you assume that going to a doctor shows disbelief or lack of faith in God? If your position is merely that the going shows lack of faith, then why would you go to a lawyer (as it would show lack of faith in God for your legal problems)? or a financial investor (as it would show your lack of faith in God regarding your finances)? or a dentist (as it would show your lack of faith in God)?, etc. etc. (you could go on and list every profession)? Why single out doctors?By SR's argument wouldn't eating show a lack of faith in His ability to provide us sustenance? This line of argument by SpringRain is ludicrous!

[Cedars]

As for the CCC being the word of god. . . well, I don't think so.
I did not say the Church is the Word of God but that it was the pillar and ground of truth (i.e., for teaching the Word of God). ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15)

[Cedars]

I already mentioned the gist of it. I cannot and wouldnot quote scripture; I've already said that. And I sure am not going to browse it to find specific quotes. But just because I cannot quote it doesn't mean I didn't understand it when I read it. But no matter how inflexible the bible may be to one reading it without ties to anything but one's own comprehension; religions deem it necessary to simultaneously worship the word and modify it through interpretation to suit their purposes.

I see now that you and I cannot come to any type of agreement here. Not only are you christian, you are an apparently devout catholic. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about how this conversation will proceed. My mind sure won't be altered by someone such as you; I have no doubt the inverse is also true. So. . . Good night, sleep tight.
I don't recall your saying that you would not quote scripture . . . only that you expected ME to! I did, and now I see you're off. Good night, SpringRain.

[Cedars]

By SR's argument wouldn't eating show a lack of faith in His ability to provide us sustenance? This line of argument by SpringRain is ludicrous!
I thought so too, but apparently SpringRain doesn't wish to pursue that line of argument any more.

[dittohead not!]

Why go to the physician? Because we do not know whether our time is up or not, we should continue to do our daily service to God -- just as the physician would be doing his by helping us out. We are trusting in God regardless of whether the physician prolongs our lives or not. Because as I said before, it is God who knows when our time on earth is ended -- and when our time is up, it is up -- no matter what we or the physician may do.

God helps those who help themselves.

How do you explain the increase in life expectancy over the past century? Is it due to the will of god, or to medical science?

[Atticus]

God helps those who help themselves.Who said that? Where does that idea even come from? Certainly not the Bible.

[SpringRain]

I thought so too, but apparently SpringRain doesn't wish to pursue that line of argument any more.

SpringRain simply doesn't want to argue. I come to debate my perspectives and learn about others'. When I feel the desire to become snotty to the other posters as opposed to being snotty in a topical way; I do my best to step away. I am a very strong atheist, so it is clear that a christian would determine that most of what I would say is "ludicrous" as stated above by Soren. It is that type of response that gets my ire up even more. So since the topic became about ME being "ludicrous" and not about the topic, I opt out. Do you really have a problem with that? Were you really planning on listening/reading with the intent of grasping my perspective (even if you don't embrace it which I wouldn't expect you to do)?

I think not.

[SpringRain]

Who said that? Where does that idea even come from? Certainly not the Bible.

So because you question the origin of his first comment; you fail to answer his question?

[Atticus]

SpringRain simply doesn't want to argue. I come to debate my perspectives and learn about others'. When I feel the desire to become snotty to the other posters as opposed to being snotty in a topical way; I do my best to step away. I am a very strong atheist, so it is clear that a christian would determine that most of what I would say is "ludicrous" as stated above by Soren. It is that type of response that gets my ire up even more. So since the topic became about ME being "ludicrous" and not about the topic, I opt out. Do you really have a problem with that? Were you really planning on listening/reading with the intent of grasping my perspective (even if you don't embrace it which I wouldn't expect you to do)?

I think not.I don't think you're being quite fair, either to your debate partners or even to your own position. First, there's a huge difference between calling someone's arguments ludicrous and calling THEM ludicrous. Second, you've just said you just want an exchange of views and that you've been terribly insulted when you've spent most of your posts telling others they are hypocrites.

For what it's worth, I find myself in agreement with you about Christianity fairly often (though not in this case). But if anyone is doing some attacking in this thread, it isn't Cedars or Soren. If anyone is disregarding the views of others out of hand because they don't agree with his own, it isn't they.

[SpringRain]

I don't think you're being quite fair, either to your debate partners or even to your own position. First, there's a huge difference between calling someone's arguments ludicrous and calling THEM ludicrous. Second, you've just said you just want an exchange of views and that you've been terribly insulted when you've spent most of your posts telling others they are hypocrites.

For what it's worth, I find myself in agreement with you about Christianity fairly often (though not in this case). But if anyone is doing some attacking in this thread, it isn't Cedars or Soren. If anyone is disregarding the views of others out of hand because they don't agree with his own, it isn't they.

Hypocrit has a specific definition; believing one thing while doing another. It isn't a judgement per se.

Ludicrous is a judgement.
–adjective
causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.

[Atticus]

Hypocrit has a specific definition; believing one thing while doing another. It isn't a judgement per se.

Ludicrous is a judgement.
–adjective
causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.The charge of hypocrisy certainly involves a judgment. Its part of speech isn't really an argument. The adjective is "hypocritical." :shrug:

[SpringRain]

The charge of hypocrisy certainly involves a judgment. Its part of speech isn't really an argument. The adjective is "hypocritical." :shrug:



Okay I will buy that. I will endeavor to use hypocritical rather than hypocrit.

[dittohead not!]

Who said that? Where does that idea even come from? Certainly not the Bible.

According to this (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/god_helps_those_who_help_themselves/154978.html), it is from Ben Franklin.

And this (http://www.wie.org/j15/holyfield.asp)attributes it to Evander Holyfield.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (http://www.bartleby.net/59/3/godhelpsthos.html), Third Edition, says it means

God will not come to the aid of those who refuse to try; we must exert ourselves if we want to succeed.

But no, it doesn't come from the Bible. It comes from experience and common sense. Does anyone want to try to argue that God will come and bail out people who refuse to do anything to help themselves?

Here, I thought that was the function of the federal government.:D

[Atticus]

According to this (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/god_helps_those_who_help_themselves/154978.html), it is from Ben Franklin.

And this (http://www.wie.org/j15/holyfield.asp)attributes it to Evander Holyfield.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (http://www.bartleby.net/59/3/godhelpsthos.html), Third Edition, says it means



But no, it doesn't come from the Bible. It comes from experience and common sense. Does anyone want to try to argue that God will come and bail out people who refuse to do anything to help themselves?

Here, I thought that was the function of the federal government.:DI don't know. Does "common sense" have anything to do with God? I mean, something like "those who help themselves are better off," or "people make their own luck" is accurate, but pretending that God somehow favors the greedy (which is one dimension of "helping yourself") bothers me. In any case, if it can't be found in any scripture (not just the Bible), it's probably PURELY projection.

[burntgorilla]

I don't know. Does "common sense" have anything to do with God? I mean, something like "those who help themselves are better off," or "people make their own luck" is accurate, but pretending that God somehow favors the greedy (which is one dimension of "helping yourself") bothers me. In any case, if it can't be found in any scripture (not just the Bible), it's probably PURELY projection.

In some ways it ties in with the pre-Christ belief that being wealthy was a sign of being blessed by God. Then Jesus came along and championed the poor. The cynic in me thinks that appealing to the poor is simply a good move if you want your faith to stick around, and is somewhat neglected these days. I think it was Izdaari who showed me how some interpret the "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..." line in a way that doesn't imply that rich people won't get to Heaven. I found it a bit tenuous and I don't think it was the intended meaning. But that's a whole different argument.

[Cedars]

God helps those who help themselves.
Agreed.

How do you explain the increase in life expectancy over the past century? Is it due to the will of god, or to medical science?
Ultimately, it is due to God. God created man who has the intelligence to avail himself of the tools of the mind, including science and medicine.

[SpringRain]

Agreed.


Ultimately, it is due to God. God created man who has the intelligence to avail himself of the tools of the mind, including science and medicine.

If god gave the intelligence then why has it taken 20 or 30 centuries for it to make a difference? Thats the most illogical line of thought you've had so far.

[Cedars]

Who said that? Where does that idea even come from? Certainly not the Bible.

I don't know where the idea that "God helps those who help themselves" originated. I guess it could mean different things to different people -- never really thought about it in great detail. But to me, it means (when I hear it) that God expects us to to avail ourselves of prayer and service to God and in doing so not only are we helping others but we are helping ourselves (and God is helping us help ourselves).

[Cedars]

SpringRain simply doesn't want to argue. I come to debate my perspectives and learn about others'. When I feel the desire to become snotty to the other posters as opposed to being snotty in a topical way; I do my best to step away. I am a very strong atheist, so it is clear that a christian would determine that most of what I would say is "ludicrous" as stated above by Soren. It is that type of response that gets my ire up even more. So since the topic became about ME being "ludicrous" and not about the topic, I opt out. Do you really have a problem with that? Were you really planning on listening/reading with the intent of grasping my perspective (even if you don't embrace it which I wouldn't expect you to do)?

I think not.
I am sorry if my responses are making you snotty. That is certainly not my intention. And if you will check back through the posts, you "opted out" before the above-mentioned "ludicrous" comment was made.

[Cedars]

If god gave the intelligence then why has it taken 20 or 30 centuries for it to make a difference? Thats the most illogical line of thought you've had so far.
Just because God gave us intelligence does not mean that we always use it wisely (intelligence does not equal wisdom) or for just cause.

[SpringRain]

I am sorry if my responses are making you snotty. That is certainly not my intention. And if you will check back through the posts, you "opted out" before the above-mentioned "ludicrous" comment was made.

No need to apologize; yes I opted out just before that post; but I could tell I was preparing to become "unladylike" for lack of a better term. Hence time to quit. Obviously I have not reached that level this evening and am back on courteous ground. Had I not opted out when I did, my response to Soren would probably have gotten me banned. It was my choice and not based on any inappropriate terminology from you that I am aware of. Atticus' one post was the key (not that he said anything wrong) because it was where I noticed that my response was about to get inappropriate. Thank you for your patience and your apology, which again was not necessary.

[SpringRain]

Just because God gave us intelligence does not mean that we always use it wisely (intelligence does not equal wisdom) or for just cause.

But if god intended you to live longer through medicine then why didn't he gift that level of wisdom and knowledge. Did he just not care about all those who came before? Does he not care enough about you to give those able to extend your life the knowledges they will acquire in the future? I just don't see how god can be granted the credit for medicine saving lives without accepting the blame for not granting it sooner (by centuries).

[Cedars]

No need to apologize; yes I opted out just before that post; but I could tell I was preparing to become "unladylike" for lack of a better term. Hence time to quit. Obviously I have not reached that level this evening and am back on courteous ground. Had I not opted out when I did, my response to Soren would probably have gotten me banned. It was my choice and not based on any inappropriate terminology from you that I am aware of. Atticus' one post was the key (not that he said anything wrong) because it was where I noticed that my response was about to get inappropriate. Thank you for your patience and your apology, which again was not necessary.

:) :angel:

[Cedars]

But if god intended you to live longer through medicine then why didn't he gift that level of wisdom and knowledge. Did he just not care about all those who came before? Does he not care enough about you to give those able to extend your life the knowledges they will acquire in the future? I just don't see how god can be granted the credit for medicine saving lives without accepting the blame for not granting it sooner (by centuries).
I do not believe it is a matter of God intending us to live longer through medicine. God's wants us to have eternal life (which has nothing to do with medicine) in communion with God (and others). He wants our time on earth (no matter how long or short it may be) to be spent loving God, sacrificing self and living for others. Medicine is just one way some people can help others.

[SpringRain]

I do not believe it is a matter of God intending us to live longer through medicine. God's wants us to have eternal life (which has nothing to do with medicine) in communion with God (and others). He wants our time on earth (no matter how long or short it may be) to be spent loving God, sacrificing self and living for others. Medicine is just one way some people can help others.

Well that makes even less sense then. I don't "get" you folks at all; I guess I never will.

[Soren]

SpringRain simply doesn't want to argue. I come to debate my perspectives and learn about others'. When I feel the desire to become snotty to the other posters as opposed to being snotty in a topical way; I do my best to step away. I am a very strong atheist, so it is clear that a christian would determine that most of what I would say is "ludicrous" as stated above by Soren. It is that type of response that gets my ire up even more. So since the topic became about ME being "ludicrous" and not about the topic, I opt out. Do you really have a problem with that? Were you really planning on listening/reading with the intent of grasping my perspective (even if you don't embrace it which I wouldn't expect you to do)?

I think not.I never called you "ludicrous", I called that part of your argument ludicrous. An oft-quoted biblical scripture is "faith without works is dead". Yes, I believe in praying for success in my endeavors, like say searching for a job, but I also know that praying for money and sitting on my can won't do the trick. God blesses or magnifies the effects of my efforts, as flawed as these may sometimes may be, but He doesn't do all of my work for me.
But if god intended you to live longer through medicine then why didn't he gift that level of wisdom and knowledge. Did he just not care about all those who came before? Does he not care enough about you to give those able to extend your life the knowledges they will acquire in the future? I just don't see how god can be granted the credit for medicine saving lives without accepting the blame for not granting it sooner (by centuries).Because our length of lifespan has precious little to do with our actual purpose here. We are here to be changed (if we are willing) into people more like He is.

[SpringRain]

I never called you "ludicrous", I called that part of your argument ludicrous. An oft-quoted biblical scripture is "faith without works is dead". Yes, I believe in praying for success in my endeavors, like say searching for a job, but I also know that praying for money and sitting on my can won't do the trick. God blesses or magnifies the effects of my efforts, as flawed as these may sometimes may be, but He doesn't do all of my work for me.
Because our length of lifespan has precious little to do with our actual purpose here. We are here to be changed (if we are willing) into people more like He is.

Saying my position is ludicrous is not an intelligent response; it is a snotty response. It has no information attached to it; only attitude and judgements. Please believe whatever tickles your fancy.

[Soren]

Saying my position is ludicrous is not an intelligent response; it is a snotty response. It has no information attached to it; only attitude and judgements. Please believe whatever tickles your fancy.You'll notice that I just included more information on why it seems so off-kilter a take on Christian doctrines, but honestly I felt that Cedars' post which I quoted already had done a fair job of dealing with the issue. As for me, believe whatever you will about me, I hear worse from my more disgruntled students.

[Cedars]

Well that makes even less sense then. I don't "get" you folks at all; I guess I never will.
How does it make less sense? God's creation of man is not about medicine nor about how long we live on earth; so why would God make an issue of living longer through medicine?

[SpringRain]

You'll notice that I just included more information on why it seems so off-kilter a take on Christian doctrines, but honestly I felt that Cedars' post which I quoted already had done a fair job of dealing with the issue. As for me, believe whatever you will about me, I hear worse from my more disgruntled students.

Darlin' I don't believe anything about you, well except you are a christian, which I think you have indicated that you are. I think perhaps you are reading more into my post than is there. And no I didn't notice you added more. I will go look now.

[SpringRain]

How does it make less sense? God's creation of man is not about medicine nor about how long we live on earth; so why would God make an issue of living longer through medicine?

I'm not the one that thinks god is making an issue. If I recall correctly you said god approved of medicine and would be all in favor of it. Now you say it is a non-issue for god. Godness gracious I'm confused as to where the fine line is and how fine a line it must be.

[dittohead not!]

Agreed.


Ultimately, it is due to God. God created man who has the intelligence to avail himself of the tools of the mind, including science and medicine.

Given that philosophy, then anything that human beings accomplish is due to god, isn't it?

Does that mean that all of the vile, mean, horrible things that people do is attributed to Satan?

[Soren]

Given that philosophy, then anything that human beings accomplish is due to god, isn't it?

Does that mean that all of the vile, mean, horrible things that people do is attributed to Satan?Our agency matters, certainly, because we choose what to become by whose thoughts, words, and deeds we choose. God will force no man to heaven, but I know that without Christ's grace we are irreconcilable to our Heavenly Father.

[Groucho]

Given that philosophy, then anything that human beings accomplish is due to god, isn't it?

Does that mean when a team wins a sporting event and its members thank God, they are correct? God really did pick one team over another? Was Satan on the other side?

[dittohead not!]

Does that mean when a team wins a sporting event and its members thank God, they are correct? God really did pick one team over another? Was Satan on the other side?

Absolutely, and in a war, the victorious win because God was on their side.

[SpringRain]

Absolutely, and in a war, the victorious win because God was on their side.
Uh Oh! The USA hasn't actually won a war since WWII has it? Lets see...Vietnam- no; Korean-no; *hey when I look at just those two, the USA could begin to be called the great dividers* gosh I think we won some "peace keeping" scenarios, oh no we're all doomed!

[Groucho]

I just won a really big and important case in front of the Pennsylvania Superior Court -- you think God was on my side?

[dittohead not!]

Uh Oh! The USA hasn't actually won a war since WWII has it? Lets see...Vietnam- no; Korean-no; *hey when I look at just those two, the USA could begin to be called the great dividers* gosh I think we won some "peace keeping" scenarios, oh no we're all doomed!

Obviously, god was on the other guy's side in those conflicts. Of course, he wasn't too happy with Hitler, given what he was doing to His chosen people and all, so he was on our side.
When the Vietnamese won their independence from France, He must not have been too happy with us for trying to take it away from them.

Now if Allah is really on the side of the jihadis, we are in deep doo doo.

[Atticus]

I just won a really big and important case in front of the Pennsylvania Superior Court -- you think God was on my side?I think God provided you with the brains and the fortitude and maybe even the inspiration to accomplish some goal. That's different than pretending He had an interest in the outcome. But, since we are called upon to do justice and love goodness, perhaps there's SOMETHING to that. I know you're profession obliges you not to care within the context of your work, but was your cause the more just one?

[dittohead not!]

I think God provided you with the brains and the fortitude and maybe even the inspiration to accomplish some goal. That's different than pretending He had an interest in the outcome. But, since we are called upon to do justice and love goodness, perhaps there's SOMETHING to that. I know you're profession obliges you not to care within the context of your work, but was your cause the more just one?

If god merely provided the brains and fortitude, and perhaps inspiration, to win, then Groucho would still have had to do something to make it happen. So, does god really help those who help themselves?

[Groucho]

I think God provided you with the brains and the fortitude and maybe even the inspiration to accomplish some goal. That's different than pretending He had an interest in the outcome. But, since we are called upon to do justice and love goodness, perhaps there's SOMETHING to that. I know you're profession obliges you not to care within the context of your work, but was your cause the more just one?

Absolutely. It's not often that I get to represent a truly innocent person. I worked my buns off for her, and am thrilled that I won the case finally after so many years. (You can read the newspaper articles about the case on my web page if you want: http://mikeventrella.com/surovcik.htm)

But the original point was to show how silly it is when people say, simply because they won, that God was on their side. I also find it a bit insulting to those who lost: God didn't like you, nyah nyah, you lost.

This especially grates on me during tragedies. If a plane crashes and a few survive, they inevitably thank God for sparing them, implying to the families of those who died that God just didn't care enough about the rest of those losers.

[Atticus]

If god merely provided the brains and fortitude, and perhaps inspiration, to win, then Groucho would still have had to do something to make it happen. So, does god really help those who help themselves?You've got a problem with causality here. God's part in this comes BEFORE Groucho's effort, not after.


I'm concerned about the idea that God favors those who "help themselves," whatever that means (I can help myself to your possessions, after all). Again, if the meaning of that phrase is that those who put in effort are more likely to succeed, then certainly. But we also know that many who put in great effort and apply adequate skills sometimes DO NOT succeed. My point is that this is a secular rather than Biblical principle.

[Groucho]

If god merely provided the brains and fortitude, and perhaps inspiration, to win, then Groucho would still have had to do something to make it happen. So, does god really help those who help themselves?

So God apparently prefers the better lawyers to the better case! God, therefore, wanted OJ to go free after murdering someone.

[Atticus]

Absolutely. It's not often that I get to represent a truly innocent person. I worked my buns off for her, and am thrilled that I won the case finally after so many years. (You can read the newspaper articles about the case on my web page if you want: http://mikeventrella.com/surovcik.htm)

But the original point was to show how silly it is when people say, simply because they won, that God was on their side. I also find it a bit insulting to those who lost: God didn't like you, nyah nyah, you lost.

This especially grates on me during tragedies. If a plane crashes and a few survive, they inevitably thank God for sparing them, implying to the families of those who died that God just didn't care enough about the rest of those losers.I agree. There are actually two opposed discourses in Christian tradition that speak to this question. One suggests that circumstances in this life (wealth, good health, etc.) are somehow a sign of God's favor; there's actually rather little evidence for this in the New Testament. The other (e.g., "the eye of a needle" passage) suggests that those who enjoy good things in this life have a harder time being close to God.

[SpringRain]

I just won a really big and important case in front of the Pennsylvania Superior Court -- you think God was on my side?

Congratulations!

[Groucho]

Congratulations!

Thank you!

I've actually won quite a few (and lost quite a few of course - them's the breaks) but this one means so much to me, because, as I said, my client was innocent.

[dittohead not!]

You've got a problem with causality here. God's part in this comes BEFORE Groucho's effort, not after.


I'm concerned about the idea that God favors those who "help themselves," whatever that means (I can help myself to your possessions, after all). Again, if the meaning of that phrase is that those who put in effort are more likely to succeed, then certainly. But we also know that many who put in great effort and apply adequate skills sometimes DO NOT succeed. My point is that this is a secular rather than Biblical principle.

Of course, it is a secular, rather than a Biblical principle. The fact remains that, had Groucho simply spent his time on WS or gone fishing instead of preparing his case, God wouldn't have done much to help him, would he?

[SpringRain]

Of course, it is a secular, rather than a Biblical principle. The fact remains that, had Groucho simply spent his time on WS or gone fishing instead of preparing his case, God wouldn't have done much to help him, would he?

I for one vote that god had nothing to do with it and all the credit goes to Groucho, period. It seems so disrespectful (I'm not meaning you here, dittohead not!, as I realize you are discussing the principles not the situation; but just for the record)...it seems so disrespectful not only to the losers, whom god apparently didn't love, that god was on the winners side...it seems equally if not more disprespectful to the winner to say his hard work, tenacity, courage, skill, and so on were essentially worthless because it was god's will that he won.

Even when sportstars say thanks to god; it just makes me cringe at the low self esteem that exhibits.

[Atticus]

Of course, it is a secular, rather than a Biblical principle. The fact remains that, had Groucho simply spent his time on WS or gone fishing instead of preparing his case, God wouldn't have done much to help him, would he?I don't think you can make this inference at all. Your argument is just as much that God interferes not at all, since it implies that Groucho's efforts alone made for his success. God's "help," in your equation, is a cipher.

[lord tammerlain]

As I understand it

Praying for god to help you, or expecting that prior good fortune is due to the christian version of God is rather fruitless.

For if God actually helps people on earth for earthly things the free will and free determination aspect of life for humans goes the way of the dodo bird.

If I remember the teaching I have recieved, all that human ( catholic tradition ) can expect from God on earth from praying is

1. Some guidance on moral issues, ( ie what actions to take )
2. Blessing for yours or someone else's soul.

[dittohead not!]

I don't think you can make this inference at all. Your argument is just as much that God interferes not at all, since it implies that Groucho's efforts alone made for his success. God's "help," in your equation, is a cipher.

That is the meaning I get out of the saying about god helping those who help themselves.

People who do help themselves (no, not help themselves to my property) succeed more often than not, and tend to ascribe their success to god. Those who don't do anything to better their situations, and who therefore don't succeed, also tend to ascribe their failure to god.

How about the phrase, "we make our own luck"? Isn't that really the same thing, only without the religious connotations?

[Atticus]

That is the meaning I get out of the saying about god helping those who help themselves.

People who do help themselves (no, not help themselves to my property) succeed more often than not, and tend to ascribe their success to god. Those who don't do anything to better their situations, and who therefore don't succeed, also tend to ascribe their failure to god.

How about the phrase, "we make our own luck"? Isn't that really the same thing, only without the religious connotations?Absolutely, as I said. But it has the virtue of not trying to involve God in something no scripture says He said or promise.

[Groucho]

I don't think you can make this inference at all. Your argument is just as much that God interferes not at all, since it implies that Groucho's efforts alone made for his success. God's "help," in your equation, is a cipher.


And why was God helping me, the atheist, instead of the District Attorney, who attends church regularly?

[Atticus]

And why was God helping me, the atheist, instead of the District Attorney, who attends church regularly?Why should your status or his matter? Do you really think God is so petty? In post #92, I said:I think God provided you with the brains and the fortitude and maybe even the inspiration to accomplish some goal. That's different than pretending He had an interest in the outcome. But, since we are called upon to do justice and love goodness, perhaps there's SOMETHING to that. Doing justice and loving goodness outweighs church attendance. In fact, Jesus argued with and criticized those who thought their outward shows of piety made them special.
Even when sportstars say thanks to god; it just makes me cringe at the low self esteem that exhibits.I think you've mistaken low self-esteem for humility.

[SpringRain]

Why should your status or his matter? Do you really think God is so petty? In post #92, I said:Doing justice and loving goodness outweighs church attendance. In fact, Jesus argued with and criticized those who thought their outward shows of piety made them special.
I think you've mistaken low self-esteem for humility.

I don't see how saying god loves me more than my opponent is humility.

As for your response to Groucho, if god doesn't prefer his followers than why should anyone worship him? I mean you seem to be saying conflicting things; one it matters to worship this christian god, but it won't make any difference in this life if you do. Is the only promise for believers the promise of an afterlife?

[Atticus]

I don't see how saying god loves me more than my opponent is humility.Do you think someone thanking God for LETTING them enjoy the exhilaration and the accolades that go with a touchdown means they think God loves them more than someone else? That's not how it works.
As for your response to Groucho, if god doesn't prefer his followers than why should anyone worship him? I mean you seem to be saying conflicting things; one it matters to worship this christian god, but it won't make any difference in this life if you do. Is the only promise for believers the promise of an afterlife?You seem to think that our relationship with God is a quid pro quo, sort of like our relationship with a merchant or something. I hate to get all Marxist on you, but I think capitalism has marred your consciousness into thinking that all relationships are based on exchange value. :confused:

Loving God is its own reward. God doesn't love us because we worship Him. We worship him because He loves us. He loves you the same as me--exactly the same.

[SpringRain]

Do you think someone thanking God for LETTING them enjoy the exhilaration and the accolades that go with a touchdown means they think God loves them more than someone else? That's not how it works.
You seem to think that our relationship with God is a quid pro quo, sort of like our relationship with a merchant or something. I hate to get all Marxist on you, but I think capitalism has marred your consciousness into thinking that all relationships are based on exchange value. :confused:

Loving God is its own reward. God doesn't love us because we worship Him. We worship him because He loves us. He loves you the same as me--exactly the same.

OMGosh, Atticus, I cannot believe you consider this a valid response to my comments.

[Atticus]

OMGosh, Atticus, I cannot believe you consider this a valid response to my comments.:confused: It was the Marxist thing, right? :confused: Our culture does tend to alter the way we view things--and the Marxist critique is as good as any for this aspect.

[SpringRain]

:confused: It was the Marxist thing, right? :confused: Our culture does tend to alter the way we view things--and the Marxist critique is as good as any for this aspect.

You've become circular in your argument without resolving any question, for example:
If as you say "Loving God is its own reward. God doesn't love us because we worship Him. We worship him because He loves us. He loves you the same as me--exactly the same." Then whats the point in anyone believing or not believing, what is the point to religions, churches, and the righteousness therein if he is going to love everyone the same? And would this include EVERYONE? even Jeffrey Dahmers? You expect to see him in heaven when you get there, huh? Anyway the bottom line is that you have circled yourself right to where I start; if god is truly as superior to us as you christians seem to think; then it shouldn't make a tinker's damn in hell whether you or I or anyone believes in him, worships him, or acknowledges him in anyway.

And as for the athlete; by saying he thanks god for giving him the opportunity to feel exhiliration.... it still implies god loved him more because the opponents didn't get that same opportunity. So your response, though eloquent, does not resolve the lack of humility issue. I am somewhat shocked that you would choose to see only one side of the equation here and not realize that whether implicite or explicite, both sides of the equation exist.

[Atticus]

You've become circular in your argument without resolving any question, for example:
If as you say "Loving God is its own reward. God doesn't love us because we worship Him. We worship him because He loves us. He loves you the same as me--exactly the same." Then whats the point in anyone believing or not believing, what is the point to religions, churches, and the righteousness therein if he is going to love everyone the same? And would this include EVERYONE? even Jeffrey Dahmers? You expect to see him in heaven when you get there, huh? Anyway the bottom line is that you have circled yourself right to where I start; if god is truly as superior to us as you christians seem to think; then it shouldn't make a tinker's damn in hell whether you or I or anyone believes in him, worships him, or acknowledges him in anyway.

And as for the athlete; by saying he thanks god for giving him the opportunity to feel exhiliration.... it still implies god loved him more because the opponents didn't get that same opportunity. So your response, though eloquent, does not resolve the lack of humility issue. I am somewhat shocked that you would choose to see only one side of the equation here and not realize that whether implicite or explicite, both sides of the equation exist.I absolutely see both sides of the equation. I'm not a fool. But I see no advantage to the cynicism you seem to enjoy. You're so interested in making sure you're not "taken" by some belief that you rob yourself of the joy that comes from belief.

Love isn't a zero-sum game--you make more of it by giving it away. You want a logical argument that will prove something to you beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry. There are none on offer. If there were, belief would be as easy as avoiding a tree with your car.

But here's a thought--why is it so important to you to DISPROVE anything to me or anyone else? You've said you're bothered by all those terrible Catholics and Mormons in Idaho, but here--where you might avoid them--you seek them out. All, it appears, in an effort to discredit them.

Things that aren't important we ignore. If there ISN'T anything to what I'm saying why bother engaging at all? Why not let me go on my merry, foolish, stupid, circular way?

But anyway--God loves us all. Even Jeffry Dahmer. Now, when Jeff showed up at his doorway, permanently covered in ****, I doubt He let him in. But He still loved him.

And you're right--it doesn't matter a "tinker's damn" whether I love God or not--at least, God is not diminished if I don't worship Him. But that's what I was made to do. *I* am diminished if I don't worship Him.

[SpringRain]

I absolutely see both sides of the equation. I'm not a fool. But I see no advantage to the cynicism you seem to enjoy. You're so interested in making sure you're not "taken" by some belief that you rob yourself of the joy that comes from belief.

Love isn't a zero-sum game--you make more of it by giving it away. You want a logical argument that will prove something to you beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry. There are none on offer. If there were, belief would be as easy as avoiding a tree with your car.

But here's a thought--why is it so important to you to DISPROVE anything to me or anyone else? You've said you're bothered by all those terrible Catholics and Mormons in Idaho, but here--where you might avoid them--you seek them out. All, it appears, in an effort to discredit them.

Things that aren't important we ignore. If there ISN'T anything to what I'm saying why bother engaging at all? Why not let me go on my merry, foolish, stupid, circular way?

But anyway--God loves us all. Even Jeffry Dahmer. Now, when Jeff showed up at his doorway, permanently covered in ****, I doubt He let him in. But He still loved him.

And you're right--it doesn't matter a "tinker's damn" whether I love God or not--at least, God is not diminished if I don't worship Him. But that's what I was made to do. *I* am diminished if I don't worship Him.

Oh, that was so unkind. Just because I don't believe in or love god; does not mean I don't love or don't believe. I love many, and I believe in many, its just that my love and beliefs are for those here in front of me; tangible rather than intangible; real instead of imagined; proven not hoped for.

[SpringRain]

Otherwise I think you're right and I will leave you to your beliefs. I was under the impression you joined this thread to explain something; apparently it was to "witness".

[Atticus]

Oh, that was so unkind. Just because I don't believe in or love god; does not mean I don't love or don't believe. I love many, and I believe in many, its just that my love and beliefs are for those here in front of me; tangible rather than intangible; real instead of imagined; proven not hoped for.I certainly meant no unkindness, but you've asked me to explain. I never said you didn't love or believe. But the fact that you are hurt by what I said tells me you think some part of what I say is true. After all, if it weren't you'd just decide I was a lunatic not worth bothering with. That's what we do with people who hear voices and see things that we know aren't there.

[Soren]

I for one vote that god had nothing to do with it and all the credit goes to Groucho, period. It seems so disrespectful (I'm not meaning you here, dittohead not!, as I realize you are discussing the principles not the situation; but just for the record)...it seems so disrespectful not only to the losers, whom god apparently didn't love, that god was on the winners side...it seems equally if not more disprespectful to the winner to say his hard work, tenacity, courage, skill, and so on were essentially worthless because it was god's will that he won.

Even when sportstars say thanks to god; it just makes me cringe at the low self esteem that exhibits.Being on God's side isn't just about wining or losing in this life. Jesus was quite clear on this when he talked about rain falling on the just and the unjust alike. I agree that some who make these comments are disrespectful-- both to God and their opponents. Some of these comments strike me as taking the Lords name in vain, since some of this is quite obviously insincere. On the other hand I think Atticus is right in his explanation of the motives rest.

Otherwise I think you're right and I will leave you to your beliefs. I was under the impression you joined this thread to explain something; apparently it was to "witness".If I agree with you, I'm explaining. If I don't I'm witnessing.:rolleyes:

[Cedars]

I'm not the one that thinks god is making an issue. If I recall correctly you said god approved of medicine and would be all in favor of it. Now you say it is a non-issue for god. Godness gracious I'm confused as to where the fine line is and how fine a line it must be.
You have a tendency, SpringRain, to turn things around to suit yourself. What I said was that our lives and physical health are gifts from God and that we should take reasonable care of them while also taking into account the needs of others; that it is for this reason that we go to doctors, not because we lack faith in God but because we take care of the bodies God gifted us.

And then YOU brought up the issue in post #77: "[I]f god intended you to live longer through medicine then why didn't he gift that level of wisdom and knowledge. Did he just not care about all those who came before? Does he not care enough about you to give those able to extend your life the knowledges they will acquire in the future? I just don't see how god can be granted the credit for medicine saving lives without accepting the blame for not granting it sooner (by centuries)."

To which my response was:
"I do not believe it is a matter of God intending us to live longer through medicine. God's wants us to have eternal life (which has nothing to do with medicine) in communion with God (and others). He wants our time on earth (no matter how long or short it may be) to be spent loving God, sacrificing self and living for others. Medicine is just one way some people can help others."

and
"God's creation of man is not about medicine nor about how long we live on earth; so why would God make an issue of living longer through medicine?"

[Cedars]

Given that philosophy, then anything that human beings accomplish is due to god, isn't it?
Anything GOOD, yes.

Does that mean that all of the vile, mean, horrible things that people do is attributed to Satan?
No. It is attributed to our own free choice -- we can do Good, which is what God wants us to do; or we can do evil, which is what Satan would like us to do. But we make the choice of our own free will.

In other words, we do Good when we choose to follow God; but we do evil when we cut God off.

[Cedars]

Does that mean when a team wins a sporting event and its members thank God, they are correct? God really did pick one team over another? Was Satan on the other side?
Personally, I think God leaves games up to each team member's effort. (Free choice, you know.)

[Cedars]

Absolutely, and in a war, the victorious win because God was on their side.
Not necessarily. God rewards just causes and punishes unjust ones. He allows nations to prosper when "God-ly" behaviors are reflected in society and nations to suffer setbacks when behaviors become "unGod-ly." This is a generality. I cannot speak specifically because I do not know God's mind on a case-by-case basis. "City of God" by St. Augustine is a very interesting read regarding the rise and fall of civilizations. He wrote "City of God" in response to charges or complaints about the Catholic Church being the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, and St. Augustine basically replied that the Empire would fall anyway, regardless of the Church, because as a society they (the Roman Empire) were corrupt.