Does Prayer Work?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 304
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
Yes, using a stilted notion of what prayer is and is supposed to do, with an impossible to prove set of standards. First, I could point out that prayer is not always asking anything. Then I could point out that sometimes, requests receiving a "no" are being answered. Then I could point out that there is no control group here because every case is unique so the only control might be "what would happen in this particular case if there was no prayer" and that becomes impossible to gauge when prayer is introduced.
You are assuming or at least implying that there was a stilted notion and no control group which is not the case.

In fact, the study revealed that there was a notable swing against prayers being answered since the respondents (in the case of praying for the health of themselves or loved ones) tended to develop anxiety over the pent up expectation.

This tends to poo poo the idea that prayer has some sort of consoling or "placebo" effect.

If I can find the survey I shall send it to you, the results are interesting.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
You are assuming or at least implying that there was a stilted notion and no control group which is not the case.

In fact, the study revealed that there was a notable swing against prayers being answered since the respondents (in the case of praying for the health of themselves or loved ones) tended to develop anxiety over the pent up expectation.

This tends to poo poo the idea that prayer has some sort of consoling or "placebo" effect.

If I can find the survey I shall send it to you, the results are interesting.
<br>
Thanks - I have seen similar studies but again, it runs in to a couple of problems when trying to quantify the effect of prayer. It assumes all prayer is petitioning, it assumes that only answers of "yes" are measurable effect, and it assumes that one can compare "patient 35, prayer on Tuesday" with "patient 35 no prayer on Tuesday" even though it is impossible to have two opposite fact patterns empirically tested in a single universe.
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
Thanks - I have seen similar studies but again, it runs in to a couple of problems when trying to quantify the effect of prayer. It assumes all prayer is petitioning, it assumes that only answers of "yes" are measurable effect, and it assumes that one can compare "patient 35, prayer on Tuesday" with "patient 35 no prayer on Tuesday" even though it is impossible to have two opposite fact patterns empirically tested in a single universe.
You are getting into the realm of "nothing is 100% provable"  or "anything is possible" or "nothing can be ruled out" which for all intents and purposes are merely excuses in lieu of reasonable argument.

The reasoned argument is that there is no proof whatsoever that prayer works and the evidence we have tends to favour the contrary. Also the overriding factor is the fact that there is not one scerrick of evidence to indicate the presence of God or any other supernatural entity to answer, let alone, act on prayers.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
You are getting into the realm of "nothing is 100% provable"  or "anything is possible" or "nothing can be ruled out" which for all intents and purposes are merely excuses in lieu of reasonable argument.

The reasoned argument is that there is no proof whatsoever that prayer works and the evidence we have tends to favour the contrary. Also the overriding factor is the fact that there is not one scerrick of evidence to indicate the presence of God or any other supernatural entity to answer, let alone, act on prayers.
Well, what I'm getting at is a flaw in the methodological approach to trying to prove the efficacy of prayer by looking at one dimension, one quantifiable answer and one variable assuming all else to be equal. While these definitions might satisfy your understanding of prayer and its effect, they are by no means a universal understanding.

When you start by deciding that proof has to be measured by your personal standards, and those standards aren't met by any force not actually beholden to your sense, then the easiest thing to do is decide that the being, not your standards has failed.

Though I admit, I don't know the word "scerrik."
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



.
Tradesecret,

YOUR RUNAWAY FROM THE TOPIC QUOTE AGAIN: “My quote was revealing. It however was not a runaway quote. It demonstrated in humour the ridiculousness of the OP. That you missed the obvious humour, I suspect, reveals much about you. LOL!”

Barring your mispelled word of “humour,”it most certainly is a runaway quote because you did not, and I repeat, did not address the main topic other than to be allegedly humorous about it in the eyes of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13).  What this blatantly reveals about you is the fact at this time, you have the same modus operandi of your cohort in crime ethang5, where he runs away with non topic inane responses as well.



YOUR UNGODLY AND BIBLICAL IGNORANT QUOTE: “You don't get to command me to use a particular name for God. You are not my boss, elder, or as far as I can tell even a Christian.” 

With you slapping the face of Jesus in your Satanic quote above by not calling our God by name, then let it be known that you know more than Jesus’ inspired true words within the scriptures, to wit:

“Ascribe to the LORD the glory due TO HIS NAME; Worship the LORD in holy array” (Psalm 29:2).

"Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His NAME bring an offering and come before Him. Worship the LORD in the splendor of His holiness” ( 1 Chronicles 16:28-29)
The passages above state with specificity that you are to glorify the NAME of God, and NOT His title, do you understand this simple biblical fact? Then doing the simple 2nd grade math that hopefully you will understand, using the term “God” is a title, and NOT God’s true name, understood? Yes? Maybe?  Our God’s name is Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost, of the Triune Doctrine, and not His ‘title” of God, GET IT?



YOUR EQUALLY IGNORANT QUOTE: “In any event I will from time to time use various names for God. However, that is my choice and it my decision.”

If you want to know more than Jesus’ inspired words, as Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost God incarnate, where it is your decision to call Him whatever you want, then subsequent to your enlightenment of Psalm 29:2 and 1 Chronicles 16:28-29, where biblically do you get this authority? Please tell us without making yourself the further biblical fool! 

BEGIN:



YOU DIGGING YOURSELF DEEPER INTO A HOLE QUOTE: “I also think that the character of God and indeed anything about Him distinguishes Him from all the so called gods made in man's image.” 

Barring the biblical axiom that Jesus is God, and made in man’s image while on earth, where you should wipe the proverbial egg from your face at this time, then with your additional bible ignorant quote above, and since our God Jesus, of whom you disrespect, then I will have to perform the following to your future Devil Speak. This will be, when Jesus has the same historical Abrahamic foundation as the Islam God of Allah, in being the SAME GOD, I will refer to Allah when dealing with your over the top Christian ignorance to prove a point, at your laughable expense, of why you have to name our specific God from the others of this era! Your bible ignorance precludes that there is not other Gods that are worshipped at this time. Priceless ignorance. LOL! 

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that you attended ethang5’s school of “How to be totally Bible Ignorant,” and when needed, lay down “smoke screens” that will take one’s thinking away from the fact that you are not addressing the topic at hand, but rather running away from it. Jesus and I will not let you perform this ungodly act, understood? Yeah, you understand alright!



YOUR LAST REVEALING EMBARRASSING QUOTE:If you had only have learnt to apply that to yourself, then this response would not have been necessary.”

If you had only have learnt ….” Huh? WTF? Irrelative to Christianity, I can also see that you had the same inept English teacher as the totally bible inept ethang5, where your syntactical sentence structuring is abhorred! In turn, “this reveals much about you!” 

Like I have had to tell the equally bible ignorant ethang5, is that Jesus does not like dummies spreading the gospel with questionable English skills. Either get someone coherent that can write for you, or remain silent to save face. Thanking you in advance.


Tradesecret, you are dismissed at this time for you to try and regroup to save further embarrassment to the TRUE inspired words of Jesus that you fail to follow.



.

Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
When you start by deciding that proof has to be measured by your personal standards, and those standards aren't met by any force not actually beholden to your sense, then the easiest thing to do is decide that the being, not your standards has failed.

Though I admit, I don't know the word "scerrik."

Skerrick.

Now, when one decides to act like a smart derriere by using la-dee-daa, airy-fairy philosophical concepts to make an quasi argument by deceptively attempting to defuse another argument by poking hypothetical, non-committal pinpricks into it without even finding the intestinal fortitude to attempt making a stand or a valued argument, one may find oneself suddenly becoming roasted. 
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
And if one decides to start from a position and only understand argument from that particular perspective, one may find oneself looking to roast because he hasn't any other approach to conversation.
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
And if one decides to start from a position and only understand argument from that particular perspective, one may find oneself looking to roast because he hasn't any other approach to conversation.
Quite right. But one has of course not committed oneself to explaining exactly what the heck one is talking about.
And of, course one should refrain from being generic or implicative in one's rhetoric and actually make a direct statement.

Roast away.
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Salixes
Another method of making holy water is to place some tap water in a saucepan, turn the heat up high......
....the boil the Hell out of it.
ahahahahahah ur so funnyyyyy that was the funniest joke ive ever hearddddddddddd


Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@WaterPhoenix
ahahahahahah ur so funnyyyyy that was the funniest joke ive ever hearddddddddddd
Yeah well, there is no need to wet yourself over it.
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Salixes
Too late ;3
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Barring your mispelled word of “humour,”it most certainly is a runaway quote because you did not, and I repeat, did not address the main topic other than to be allegedly humorous about it in the eyes of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13).  What this blatantly reveals about you is the fact at this time, you have the same modus operandi of your cohort in crime ethang5, where he runs away with non topic inane responses as well.
America is not the only place where English is utilised. Humour is spelt correctly. As for not addressing the main topic, I directly refuted his topic with my response. The fact that this eludes your tiny little brain is unsurprising, but it is what it is. 

With you slapping the face of Jesus in your Satanic quote above by not calling our God by name, then let it be known that you know more than Jesus’ inspired true words within the scriptures, to wit:

“Ascribe to the LORD the glory due TO HIS NAME; Worship the LORD in holy array” (Psalm 29:2).

"Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His NAME bring an offering and come before Him. Worship the LORD in the splendor of His holiness” ( 1 Chronicles 16:28-29)
Imbecile! I count at least 6 times that you use God as God and don't refer to him by name. I underlined them for your assistance.  If you knew the OT as you purport, then you would realise that there are many names of God and not just the couple you refer to.  The verses above do not tell us to use his name, but rather to ascribe glory to his name. The two are quite different things. In any event, anyone has studied the OT would know that a person's name describes the person's character. When we pray to God and ascribe glory to his name, we are reiterating his character, for instance we pray to God as the God of all comfort to bring comfort to those who are suffering. We pray to God as the God of all wisdom to provide wisdom to those who seek it. We pray to the God of Holiness to bring righteousness and mercy to those who need it. Simply calling God, Jesus or Yahweh or Ghost does none of those things and reveals a particular shallowness in the way you consider God and how to glorify Him. 

The passages above state with specificity that you are to glorify the NAME of God, and NOT His title, do you understand this simple biblical fact? Then doing the simple 2nd grade math that hopefully you will understand, using the term “God” is a title, and NOT God’s true name, understood? Yes? Maybe?  Our God’s name is Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost, of the Triune Doctrine, and not His ‘title” of God, GET IT?
I have addressed this above. 

If you want to know more than Jesus’ inspired words, as Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost God incarnate, where it is your decision to call Him whatever you want, then subsequent to your enlightenment of Psalm 29:2 and 1 Chronicles 16:28-29, where biblically do you get this authority? Please tell us without making yourself the further biblical fool! 
I have answered this above already.  The authority we have is in part in the verses you have referred to and which you have misunderstood. Ascribing to God his glory is to reflect upon his character in the way we pray to Him. We give Him praise and Honour for Who He is and for all that He has done in Christ Jesus. We confess our sins to Him and repent of them, which means turning away from our sins and turning towards the LORD God Almighty. We follow Jesus in other words. 

Barring the biblical axiom that Jesus is God, and made in man’s image while on earth, where you should wipe the proverbial egg from your face at this time, then with your additional bible ignorant quote above, and since our God Jesus, of whom you disrespect, then I will have to perform the following to your future Devil Speak. This will be, when Jesus has the same historical Abrahamic foundation as the Islam God of Allah, in being the SAME GOD, I will refer to Allah when dealing with your over the top Christian ignorance to prove a point, at your laughable expense, of why you have to name our specific God from the others of this era! Your bible ignorance precludes that there is not other Gods that are worshipped at this time. Priceless ignorance. LOL! 
Firstly, humanity is made in God's image. God is not made in man's image.  Hence when God appeared as a man, He was in fact reflecting his own original image.  Get the logic right and the timing. Islam is not descended from Abraham. Islam is one of the world's newest religions and commenced well after Christianity and the Jewish religion. There is no direct link between Mohammed and Abraham. At least Jesus can trace his history back to Abraham. Mohammed arose in a country where there were many different cultures and nations. Abraham lived in a country where there were many nations and cultures. Abraham had two children, Ismael and Isaac. One was the seed of promise and one the seed of the flesh. There is every indication that Ismael followed the same religion of his father. But there is no evidence that every other person who lives in the area of Palestine or the Middle East is directly descended from Ismael or from Abraham. To suggest that it is the case that EVERY Arab is descended only from Abraham is a nonsense. Abraham was one man in the middle east at the time he lived. There were many thousands of others. It is more probable that most Middle Eastern persons are descended from every other person than Abraham. 

Allah is the Aramaic term for god. This does not mean that Mohammed's god is connected with the Jewish or Christian God. It only means that Mohammed appreciated the truth and freedom that comes from recognising ONE GOD. Yet the god he chose to represent is nothing like the Jewish God or the Christian God. 

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that you attended ethang5’s school of “How to be totally Bible Ignorant,” and when needed, lay down “smoke screens” that will take one’s thinking away from the fact that you are not addressing the topic at hand, but rather running away from it. Jesus and I will not let you perform this ungodly act, understood? Yeah, you understand alright!
I consider Ethang's messages in the main on point. He has his own way of doing things. Yet the fact that he mocks you is because you are worthy of being mocked. And the fact that he embarrasses you is because you are embarrassing. 


If you had only have learnt ….” Huh? WTF? Irrelative to Christianity, I can also see that you had the same inept English teacher as the totally bible inept ethang5, where your syntactical sentence structuring is abhorred! In turn, “this reveals much about you!” 
Yes, I noticed my bad English skills in that sentence after I had posted it. Sadly, I did not think it would matter too much. After all, this is a debate site, not learn how to do English class. It reveals only that at times I am lazy. 

Like I have had to tell the equally bible ignorant ethang5, is that Jesus does not like dummies spreading the gospel with questionable English skills. Either get someone coherent that can write for you, or remain silent to save face. Thanking you in advance.
I would prefer to have bad English skills than bad logic like you. So you are most welcome. 



rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
Quite right. But one has of course not committed oneself to explaining exactly what the heck one is talking about.
And of, course one should refrain from being generic or implicative in one's rhetoric and actually make a direct statement.

Roast away.

I have made a series of direct statements which have to do with the nature of prayer and the failure of generic statistics to address the myriad variables and dimensions of meaning that prayer has in the real world. That you are on the other side of a particular divide so my particulars have no meaning is not indicative of their content, just of your position.

As to roasting, I have none to do.
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
I  have made a series of direct statements which have to do with the nature of prayer and the failure of generic statistics to address the myriad variables and dimensions of meaning that prayer has in the real world. That you are on the other side of a particular divide so my particulars have no meaning is not indicative of their content, just of your position.

OK, you asked for it. Now for the roasting.

Albeit that you made a series of direct statements, such direct statements account for diddly squat except to show off your ability to squirm around issues like a slimy worm and poke irrelevant holes in somebody else's (valid and reasoned) argument.

(here's where we need to spell it all out unambiguously folks) Now, in order to participate in intelligent social intercourse one needs to present an argument; a suggestion would be: "Prayer does work because..........."
Or:
if you wish to be a bit more colouful in your compelling argument: "The morgue in such a hospital would be no larger than a janitors closet because..........."
Or:
(which is the most likely course) Simply carry on with your slimy worm, deceptive way neither effectively saying anything but making sneeringly veiled sideswipes at someone else's fair argument. In which case you will be roasted to a cinder.
Or:
(which is your only logical option really) Don't make any further reply at all, which of course indicates that you have no valid argument whatsoever.

See, what could be better than optional choice?
The answer is right before your eyes.
Choose wisely.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Shhhhhhhhhh, you're done. 
Not quite yet jasper. If I were done, you wouldn't still be begging for attention.

This is because...
No one cares about your silly observations or your  inane repetition about people being done or slapped. You are the only one in your pretend world, its interesting only to you.

Therefore, may I suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment...
I like the embarrassment I'm causing you. It's deliberate, why would I avoid it?

The rest of your template post was nonsense so I threw it out.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Like I have had to tell the equally bible ignorant ethang5, is that Jesus does not like dummies spreading the gospel with questionable English skills. 
Here is what English teacher Dee Dee "corrected".

Your begging for attention, while endearing, is pathetic.

The genius said the "your"  should have been "you're". It's one thing to be basically illiterate, but to begin trying to correct others is hilarious. I mean, Dee Dee uses a template for his posts.

Oh my, the lolz!
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
OK, you asked for it. Now for the roasting.
Great. Looking forward to it.


Albeit that you made a series of direct statements, such direct statements account for diddly squat except to show off your ability to squirm around issues like a slimy worm and poke irrelevant holes in somebody else's (valid and reasoned) argument.
So, apparently, step 1 of "roasting" is to concede that your earlier inference that I had made no direct statement was wrong. So noted.

Now, in order to participate in intelligent social intercourse one needs to present an argument; a suggestion would be: "Prayer does work because..........."
Or:
if you wish to be a bit more colouful in your compelling argument: "The morgue in such a hospital would be no larger than a janitors closet because..........."
Or:
Step two seems to be to complain because the direct statement made wasn't the one you wanted to hear. So instead of confronting the statement made, you suggest things that conform to your predetermined perspective. Got it.

(which is the most likely course) Simply carry on with your slimy worm, deceptive way neither effectively saying anything but making sneeringly veiled sideswipes at someone else's fair argument. In which case you will be roasted to a cinder.
Step 3? Call another position names but whatever you do, don't actually address what was said.

step 3a seems to be the repeated insistence that the original question is a "fair argument" without having to defend it against any challenge, simply because it is, by your insistence, a fair argument.

I can try to repeat my earlier position if you would like, and even use simpler words if you are having trouble keeping up:
Prayer's efficacy can only be measured if you
1. define prayer only as petition
2. quantify as successful petition only prayers where a "yes" (fulfillment) can be correlated positively and definitively
3. be able to establish a control which accounts for all variables even though this creates a logical impossibility (a flaw in many studies) 

I often find that in these situations, people close their eyes when a conversation moves in a direction for which they are unequipped, and simply repeat their initial position. If the response doesn't meet them head on, but instead, asks for a clarification of terms, or introduces other dimensions of thought for which they are unprepared, they shut down, call names and dig their heels in. If that's your approach, as it appears it is, then feel free.

If this is your idea of "roasting" then I wouldn't want to eat dinner at your house, as the food won't be cooked at all.

I would welcome some sort of comment on what I actually said (you know, "content") but if you don't understand something, just ask. And if you don't like how I approach the issue, then say so, or move on. Don't feel required to try and respond if you have nothing constructive to say.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
@Salixes
Ouch. Someone got roasted.

Don't feel required to try and respond if you have nothing constructive to say.
Ol' Sal thinks whatever he says is "constructive".

I would welcome some sort of comment on what I actually said (you know, "content") 
Don't hold your breath. Ol' Sal doesn't address content. See, he thinks he's right because.... Well, because. So there is no need for him to argue or offer any logic.

He will now do one of 3 things.
1. He will recede into what he thinks is humor, and hide behind it with a lame post.
2. He will accuse you of dishonesty and imply your theism makes you untrustworthy.
3. He will run to create another thread where he will repost his illogical bias and imply you were beaten in this post.

Just Watch.

rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
2. He will accuse you of dishonesty and imply your theism makes you untrustworthy.
<br>
Though I don't htink I'm being dishonest (factually or rhetorically) I can accept that I am untrustworthy. I have done nothing to earn any trust and people might not know me personally. But I want what I wrote to be judged, not me as a person. My position as a theist might also undercut anyone's interest in trusting me and my judgment, which is fine. If those are the grounds on which someone wants to interact, then I can't argue with that. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
Though I don't think I'm being dishonest (factually or rhetorically)
<br>
You aren't.

Now, when one decides to act like a smart derriere by using la-dee-daa, airy-fairy philosophical concepts to make an quasi argument by deceptively attempting to defuse another argument by poking hypothetical, non-committal pinpricks into it without even finding the intestinal fortitude to attempt making a stand or a valued argument
Either Ol' Sal doesn't understand your argument, or is being dishonest in his evaluation of your argument. Further, he calls you deceptive.

But I've known him for years, I've seen him make dozens of threads on this subject. He fully knows of all the problems with methodology as his contentions in those threads were systematically dismembered by many posters. I know he's lying.

But I'm not telling you to convince you of it, I'm telling you so you better know how to approach him. Though it seems you may not need it.

I like your style.

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
My friend doesn't like you .....
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret




Tradesecret,


YOUR VERY WEAK POST:  “As for not addressing the main topic, I directly refuted his topic with my response. The fact that this eludes your tiny little brain is unsurprising, but it is what it is.”

Barring the fact of your insult towards me which is against the rules of this forum that will get you banned, so, you think that by bringing your alleged humor into the discussion of this topic, by not really addressing said topic whatsoever in the first place, is acceptable? That is nothing but a cop out because you know you can’t discuss Salixes initial post, other than to run away from it in your perceived humor. How sad for you in this respect in not being able to defend the faith as Jesus promotes. (Titus 1:9) 



YOUR QUOTE REGARDING YOUR POSSIBLE BAN: “Imbecile! I count at least 6 times that you use God as God and don't refer to him by name.”

Barring you calling me an imbecile which is a personal attack, and against the rules where you can get banned, I have to use the term God in sentences as a comparison to show you how disrespectful you are by not using His NAME, get it? Huh? 



YOUR QUOTE: “If you knew the OT as you purport, then you would realise that there are many names of God and not just the couple you refer to.”

It matters NOT in how many names are in the Old Testament for the brutal serial killer Yahweh, which is the same God as Jesus, understood?  The only name that matters, and I repeat, the only name that is to be used in respect is Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost of the Triune Doctrine, or for short, Jesus, get it?  

Regarding those other names that you mention that are supposed to be of importance to get you out of your predicament,  when was the last time you used Alpha and the Omega when in discussion within this forum relating to Jesus?   :(



YOUR QUOTE AGREEING WITH ME: “The verses above do not tell us to use his name, but rather to ascribe glory to his name”

Uh, how do you ascribe glory to His name if you don’t use His name to begin with?!  Like you stated, is this statement ascribing glory to His name? “My God is ever loving and forgiving.” No it is not!  When using the word GOD as a title only, it is not ascribing glory to His NAME because it only remains a title of Jesus and not His NAME which is Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost, or simplified by just using the NAME of Jesus. UNDERSTAND?!  

As seen by the membership, you are having a very hard time in respecting Jesus true modus operandi within the scriptures, of which you may pay for upon Judgment Day!  Do you smell sulfur yet?



YOUR QUOTE SLAPPING JESUS IN THE FACE: “We pray to God as the God of all comfort to bring comfort to those who are suffering.”

Barring that you are not using our God's name of Jesus in prayer, I am sorry, but if you actually knew your bible, then praying to Jesus is not needed because He knows in what you need in the first place, whereas the act of prayer is seemingly demeaning to Jesus under this notion.

“Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”  (Matthew 6:8)



YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: “Firstly, humanity is made in God's image. God is not made in man's image.”

IMAGE:  a representation or likeness of a person or thing, as in a drawing, painting, photograph, or sculpture

"God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)

Thank you for agreeing with me in this proposition that I posited in another thread which proves that our Yahweh of the OT has the same bodies and “attachments” that we have as humans, praise!  Can you image in your mind that Yahweh has a penis under our agreeable circumstance? :)



YOUR UNFORTUNATE IGNORANT QUOTE UPON THE ISLAMIC FAITH NOT BEING RELATED TO ABRAHAM: “Islam is not descended from Abraham. Islam is one of the world's newest religions and commenced well after Christianity and the Jewish religion.”

I am sorry to inform you of the fact that Abraham is the father of the Arab people and the Islamic faith, as well as the Jewish people, and Christianity through himself and his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. 

“Allah has told the truth. So follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth; and he was not of the polytheists.” (Qur’an 3:95)

Abraham is credited with establishing both the sanctuary in Mecca known as the Kaaba and the practice of Islamic pilgrimage (Haj) to that site (Qur’an 22:26-27, Qur’an 3:96-97, Qur’an 2:125-129).

When it comes to the five pillars of Islam, the importance of the Prophet Abraham becomes even more evident.
The second pillar of Islam is Salah, the obligatory five daily prayers. Within these prayers, Muslims must ask Allah to send His blessings upon the Prophet Abraham 5 times a day, in virtually every time zone on this planet, asking God to send His blessings on Prophet Abraham in the course of his/her prayer.

The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism (the base of the other two religions) in the 7th century BCE, Christianity in the 1st century CE, and Islam in the 7th century CE.

It is not my intention to correct you upon this vital fact, whereas you will have to do your homework next time upon the simple Islamic faith’s origins. Therefore, Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah are the SAME GODS!  Find your apologetic books, quick! LOL!



YOUR STEPPING IN POO QUOTE RELATING TO ETHANG5 MOCKING ME: “Yet the fact that he mocks you is because you are worthy of being mocked.”

Within the same vein, should ethang5 now be mocking you because of your blatant faux pas regarding the Islamic faith above? Yes? OUCH!



TRADESECRET, WATCH YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS UPON ME BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT YOU BANNED, OKAY? I NEED YOU ON THIS FORUM TO SHOW THE MEMBERSHIP IN WHAT A TRUE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LOOKS AND ACTS LIKE, AGREED? THANK YOU.

.











Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
But I want what I wrote to be judged, not me as a person.
Tough, because you wrote it and you are a person.

I'm not saying you are a bad person however picking holes in somebody else's argument by beating around the bush is not a good look.

What I am doing is encouraging you to make your own argument instead of trying to make fault of others.

Otherwise, you leave yourself wide open to get roasted.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
Tough, because you wrote it and you are a person.
But you don't know me as a person. So if you choose to judge and respond to me as an individual and not what I wrote, just understand the flaw in your thinking.

I'm not saying you are a bad person however picking holes in somebody else's argument by beating around the bush is not a good look.
First, finding flaws in someone's thinking and argument is a very useful and important rhetorical strategy. That you don't value it is strange as your method seems to be to find holes in MY argument without addressing the content. Second, if you think that all I'm doing is picking holes in an argument, then you don't understand how logical discourse develops.

What I am doing is encouraging you to make your own argument instead of trying to make fault of others.
Except I have and you have ignored it because it isn't in the form you want to see.

Otherwise, you leave yourself wide open to get roasted.
First, I really don't get personally touched by what anonymous handles on some web site say to or about me. Second, what you said wasn't even on point enough to be impactful on any level.
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
...finding flaws in someone's thinking and argument is a very useful and important rhetorical strategy....

Except I have and you have ignored it because it isn't in the form you want to see.

...what you said wasn't even on point enough to be impactful on any level....
With due respect what you saying there is a load of unmitigated crap, and you know it.

Yes, "finding flaws.......strategy" but as we both know, that is all you have done. You have not submitted one argument, in favour, or otherwise.

What I said was perfectly valid and properly backed up and my arguing prowess does not extend down anywhere near the level that you may have in mind.

So cut the deceptive rhetoric and make some form of argument unless of course you are avoiding the issue.

"Oh no, of course not, not me, how dare you say that, how preposterous?" 

Well, I do dare say that because of you record for deception and slithering around the issue because you know very well that the subject is 100% unwinnable in the negative.

Why don't you just try and be more up front in admitting that you have no valid argument...I mean; prayer working,  ...you would have to be completely out of your head to believe that.

So, let's just put you out of your obvious misery and put an end to this roasting right now.

You have lost the argument by default because you haven't even initiated an argument one way or the other in the first place let alone offered one. My argument stands unchallenged.

You certainly won't get anywhere in life if all you do is sneer from the sidelines.
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
With due respect what you saying there is a load of unmitigated crap, and you know it.
With all due respect you are wrong and you know it. I have just mirrored what you said to me. Does it seem persuasive to you, my telling you what you must know (according to me) and labeling your statement? No, it shouldn't. Nor does your statement have any meaning or use to me.


Yes, "finding flaws.......strategy" but as we both know, that is all you have done. You have not submitted one argument, in favour, or otherwise.
So you start by accepting that what you denigrated is, in fact, a valid strategy. So my point carries. Thank you. Next you say that if it is "all I have done" then that is somehow not enough. First, it is enough -- if I point out that the flaws in an original claim are fatal, so there can be no answer, then there is nothing more that has to be said. However, in this case, my pointing out was complemented by affirmative claims (such as "there is more to prayer than petition") which also invalidate the power of the original statement.

What I said was perfectly valid and properly backed up and my arguing prowess does not extend down anywhere near the level that you may have in mind.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. What you said was valid under the conditions which I outlined, but I explained that those conditions are not practical. You should deal with that before moving forward. Instead, you suggested what you thought I should say even though it is not a necessary (or relevant) direction of discussion.

So cut the deceptive rhetoric and make some form of argument unless of course you are avoiding the issue.
What in anything I have said is deceptive? How can pointing out a difference in definition of relevant terms be avoiding the issue.

Well, I do dare say that because of you record for deception and slithering around the issue because you know very well that the subject is 100% unwinnable in the negative.
I'm not sure what record of any deception you think you have. And to remind you, you are asserting the negative ("prayer does not work"). So if it is unwinnable in the negative, you have painted yourself into a corner.

Why don't you just try and be more up front in admitting that you have no valid argument...I mean; prayer working,  ...you would have to be completely out of your head to believe that.
If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that my assertion is twofold:
1. Petitionary prayer is very difficult to measure in terms of "working" because "working" is ill-defined and there is no identical "non-prayer" control that can be compared to
2. non-petitionary prayer, by definition, works, because its goal is the completion of non-petitionary prayer

So, let's just put you out of your obvious misery and put an end to this roasting right now.
What roasting? You mean your repeating the same empty statements and thinking that repetition somehow creates rectitude?

You have lost the argument by default because you haven't even initiated an argument one way or the other in the first place let alone offered one. My argument stands unchallenged.
Closing your eyes and plugging your ears might let you convince yourself of this, but that's not a really effective way to hold a conversation.

You certainly won't get anywhere in life if all you do is sneer from the sidelines.
A nice epigram. Next time, find one that is relevant,
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
And if you see prayer as having uses beyond asking, and therefore, judged by metrics of success beyond "getting" (or even "convincingly not getting") then prayer's "working" can be assessed in completely different ways, having little to do with hospitals and morgues.
It has everything to do with morgues and hospitals as per the thread as you damned well know.

For your effing information, "asking" is the invitation to perform or to fulfill.

Trying to dress down a word in order to neutralise the meaning and thereby the topic hardly does one a favour in the honesty stakes, now does it?
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 764
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
It has everything to do with morgues and hospitals as per the thread as you damned well know.
No, it doesn't. You are trying to limit it to that, but it goes well beyond that. If you haven't figured that out by now, I can only assume a willful blindness on your part.

For your effing information, "asking" is the invitation to perform or to fulfill.
And, if you had been paying attention, you would see that my assertion is that prayer goes well beyond asking.

Trying to dress down a word in order to neutralise the meaning and thereby the topic hardly does one a favour in the honesty stakes, now does it?

"Dress down a word"? Just because you don't know the full meaning of the word doesn't make anyone else less honest. If you want to start by limiting your terms so that the only conclusion anyone can come to must be the exact one you already believe in, then just say so. That's a ridiculous way to engage with people but if that's your way, then so be it.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
New must read poster. Wonderful series of posts Rosends.

I can only assume a willful blindness on your part.
Your assumption would be right.
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
It has everything to do with morgues and hospitals as per the thread as you damned well know.
You are trying to limit it to that,

Wrong, I'm not trying.
I am limiting it to that because that is precisely what the thread is about.

And the reason I limit it to that is because of my bloody-mindedness.

I am deliberately limiting the chances of deceptive people who think they can try all sorts of tricks to derail the argument because they know the obvious right from the beginning.
There is no hope of winning an argument that is based on irrefutable truth.

You lost the argument ages ago anyway for failing to offer an argument.