Why do people believe in the God of the Bible?

As far as the "four corners," don't we refer to "sunrise" and "sunset" in 2009 even though we know full well that it is not the sun but the earth that is doing the rotating?

Stephanie is always correct.

SheikBen wrote:As far as the "four corners," don't we refer to "sunrise" and "sunset" in 2009 even though we know full well that it is not the sun but the earth that is doing the rotating?

It's best not to confuse people with legitimate counterpoints. Of course the Bible also acknowledges that the Earth is a sphere Is. 40:22, and even a casual reader can figure out that the English translation "four corners" is referring to the four points of the compass. It does not teach or even imply a flat or square Earth.

For someone who is so enamored with empiricism, I don't see how you can make the above statement. Isn't the medical community beginning to warm to the idea of the power of prayer, even those who would say the power has to do with emotional wellbeing?

No. There are no documented studies that prayer changes the recovery of a patient.

You can say that prayer does not change things, and I obviously beg to differ. I regularly pray for something to happen, but like Fletch I do not view prayer as primarily asking for "things." If we approach God like a bellhop I would not be the least bit surprised if we find our prayers futile.

Name one time you have prayed and not asked god for something... a sign... understanding... world peace... .

You believe what you want to. Stephanie is quite correct that people believe what they choose to believe. I think that is why so many questions are kept unanswered by God--we can either accept Jesus or reject Him, we are not compelled.

I believe what I can see, whether directly or through inference.

As for prayer, I think it is an activity for people that want to help without actually having to do anything. Just MY feeling, but there it is.

As far as the "four corners," don't we refer to "sunrise" and "sunset" in 2009 even though we know full well that it is not the sun but the earth that is doing the rotating?

We also don't claim it to be the literal word of god.

It's best not to confuse people with legitimate counterpoints. Of course the Bible also acknowledges that the Earth is a sphere Is. 40:22, and even a casual reader can figure out that the English translation "four corners" is referring to the four points of the compass. It does not teach or even imply a flat or square Earth.

Really. When was the compass invented? What culture first used them? How can it refer to compass points what the compass wasn't invented yet?

The bible implies, many times, that the earth is flat (linky click).

You also lack evidence for a global flood and a young earth.

Anyone that believes the bible doesn't contain some metaphor and allegory (and inaccuracy), that it is the "literal truth", is deluding themselves.

SheikBen wrote:As far as the "four corners," don't we refer to "sunrise" and "sunset" in 2009 even though we know full well that it is not the sun but the earth that is doing the rotating?

We still refer to the "four corners" ...... but we call them North, South, East and West.

.

TerryRC wrote: No. There are no documented studies that prayer changes the recovery of a patient.

Careful there now, ...... you are messing with that "placebo effect".

.

TerryRC wrote: Really. When was the compass invented? What culture first used them? How can it refer to compass points what the compass wasn't invented yet?

Aw, bout sometime between 770-476BC

http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26519.htm

That gives it plenty of time to be mentioned in the Bible, ..... if in fact it is.

.

Well maybe they used a sundial.

Fletch wrote:

ziggy wrote:

No, God is not bound by the laws of nature. That is what I mean when I say that He transcends His creation.

Then from where do the laws of Nature come?

Well they certainly come from God, but there is nothing that would require Him to bind Himself to the that which He has created. I will add to this that I believe His interaction with us is primarily and ordinarily within the laws of the world He has placed us in.

We are not as far apart as it might first appear.

And to the degree that we might disagree on details of some theological doctrines or other, it is perhaps not of great importance.

ziggy wrote:

Fletch wrote:

ziggy wrote:

No, God is not bound by the laws of nature. That is what I mean when I say that He transcends His creation.

Then from where do the laws of Nature come?

Well they certainly come from God, but there is nothing that would require Him to bind Himself to the that which He has created. I will add to this that I believe His interaction with us is primarily and ordinarily within the laws of the world He has placed us in.

We are not as far apart as it might first appear.

And to the degree that we might disagree on details of some theological doctrines or other, it is perhaps not of great importance.

Just to be clear, I think that His interaction with humanity as a whole is within the laws of nature (general revelation); that is to say that nature reveals that there is a God, but it does not reveal to us who that God is. There is also the separate theological concept of His interaction with believers through the Scriptures (specific revelation). I suspect that we would part ways on that concept.

Fletch wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Fletch wrote:

ziggy wrote:

No, God is not bound by the laws of nature. That is what I mean when I say that He transcends His creation.

Then from where do the laws of Nature come?

Well they certainly come from God, but there is nothing that would require Him to bind Himself to the that which He has created. I will add to this that I believe His interaction with us is primarily and ordinarily within the laws of the world He has placed us in.

We are not as far apart as it might first appear.

And to the degree that we might disagree on details of some theological doctrines or other, it is perhaps not of great importance.

Just to be clear, I think that His interaction with humanity as a whole is within the laws of nature (general revelation); that is to say that nature reveals that there is a God, but it does not reveal to us who that God is.

OK. I can accept that as far as it goes. It almost mirrors what I have written here previously.

There is also the separate theological concept of His interaction with believers through the Scriptures (specific revelation). I suspect that we would part ways on that concept.

Probably. I note that you see that as a "separate theological concept"- apparently meaning separate from nature revealing that there is a God. I appreciate that you can recognize it as separate.

Aw, bout sometime between 770-476BC

http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26519.htm

That gives it plenty of time to be mentioned in the Bible, ..... if in fact it is.

My mistake.

It appeared in western civilizations at a later date.

Careful there now, ...... you are messing with that "placebo effect".

Which would be exactly that.

The only time people showed improvement was when the patients knew people were praying for them.

The groups were there was prayer without the patient's knowledge and the groups with no prayer at all were indistinguishable.

ziggy wrote:

Fletch wrote:There is also the separate theological concept of His interaction with believers through the Scriptures (specific revelation). I suspect that we would part ways on that concept.

Probably. I note that you see that as a "separate theological concept"- apparently meaning separate from nature revealing that there is a God. I appreciate that you can recognize it as separate.

I think that all genuine Fundamentalists would acknowledge this as a separate concept from the general revelation of nature. Henry Thiessen (fundamentalist theologian) wrote in his Lectures of Systematic Theology, "[General Revelation] is found in nature, history, and conscience. It is communicated through the media of natural phenomena occurring in nature or the course of history; it is addressed to all intelligent creatures generally and is accessible to all; it has for its object the supplying of the natural need of the man and the persuasion of the soul to seek after the true God." Most people are not offended by a discussion of general revelation; the offense usually stems from a discussion of special or specific revelation.

TerryRC wrote:Careful there now, ...... you are messing with that "placebo effect".

Which would be exactly that.

The only time people showed improvement was when the patients knew people were praying for them.

The groups were there was prayer without the patient's knowledge and the groups with no prayer at all were indistinguishable.

I should like to hear more about the groups that were considered and how many of them were considered. Perhaps those studies failed to find anything, but that does not mean that there was nothing to find.

Any evangelical or fundamentalist Christian knows that people are praying for them. Prayer requests go into church bulletins, emails, and phone links, and all involved believe that prayer works. Of course, many prayers go unanswered in the way we want them to be answered.

It would be a strange thing indeed for someone who believes in prayer to be willing to have someone "not" pray for them, and for that matter, to have friends and families willing to "not" be praying for them.

SheikBen wrote: Any evangelical or fundamentalist Christian knows that people are praying for them. Prayer requests go into church bulletins, emails, and phone links, and all involved believe that prayer works.

No they don't, if anything they just assume they are or did. They know that they themselves do not always pray for everyone that is sick.

And anything other than "on the spot praying" does not have the "healing effect".

The same "emotional effect" is not generated/created in the patient.

.

Sam and TerryRC,

No doubt you are glad that you have the right not to believe in the God of the Bible. If I or Fletch or Terry H were to somehow get legislation passed that allowed for lobotomies or what-not to force you to believe you would surely be pissed.

And yet you want "proof" rather than accept that God has allowed to us to believe or not to believe. Love that is demanded is not love at all. God reveals himself enough that we can choose for or against Him; the kind of evidence you seek would take the choice away from the individual.

That is, if God went out of His way to prove Himself to you (as if He were in the position of having to do so), He would be robbing you of your free will.

No doubt you are glad that you have the right not to believe in the God of the Bible. If I or Fletch or Terry H were to somehow get legislation passed that allowed for lobotomies or what-not to force you to believe you would surely be pissed.

You compare a belief system (or lack thereof) to having part of your brain removed? Really?

And yet you want "proof" rather than accept that God has allowed to us to believe or not to believe. Love that is demanded is not love at all. God reveals himself enough that we can choose for or against Him; the kind of evidence you seek would take the choice away from the individual.

That is, if God went out of His way to prove Himself to you (as if He were in the position of having to do so), He would be robbing you of your free will.

And I can't show you the invisible aliens that live in my house. It would violate their Prime Directive not to interfere with primitive cultures.

Give me a break.

The god of the OT had no problem providing evidence of his/her/its existence. Why the sea change?

Love that is demanded is not love at all.

Bull.

Your kids don't demand your love?

No, of course not. In fact, sometimes they darn near "demand" the opposte:)

I love my kids specifically because they are my kids. We have a relationship that they were born into. They do not demand my love, although they demand my attention. There is such a thing as unloving attention.

I love my kids specifically because they are my kids. We have a relationship that they were born into. They do not demand my love, although they demand my attention. There is such a thing as unloving attention.

They not only DEMAND your love, they take it for granted.

I have raised/am raising four kids for myself (and others - long story). I know of what I speak.

This is a "rabbit" but I'm happy to chase it.

What is love?

(And if you reply "baby don't hurt me" I'll replace your coffee with decaf")

To say that kids demand love, what do you mean by "love?"

What is love?

That state when someone's happiness and wellbeing is essential to your own.

TerryRC wrote:What is love?

That state when someone's happiness and wellbeing is essential to your own.

How can that be if one is willing to sacrifice their own life for the one they love?

.