Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Not a formula for Prayer, but a Guide

Many Christians have structured their prayers around the acronym A-C-T-S, which stands for Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication. The Psalms are filled with whole chapters that can assist believers.

Adoration
Prayer without adoration is like a body without a soul. It is not only incomplete, it just doesn’t work. Through adoration we express our genuine, heartfelt love and longing for God. The Psalms, in particular, can be transformed into passionate prayers of adoration.

Read Psalm 95:6:
Oh come, let us worship and bow down;
Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.

Confession
Not only do the Psalms abound with illustrations of adoration, but they are replete with exclamations of confession as well. Those who are redeemed by the person and work of Jesus are positively declared righteous before God. In practical terms, however, we are still sinners who sin everyday. While unconfessed sin will not break our union with God, it will break our communion with God. Thus confession is a crucial aspect of daily prayer. Go to Psalm 51, a beautiful example of a confessional prayer of David:

Have mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your lovingkindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies.
Blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin. (verses 1-2)

Thanksgiving
Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more basic to prayer than thanksgiving. Psalm 100:4 teaches us to “enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise.” Frankly, failure to do so is the stuff of pagan babblings and carnal Christianity. Pagans, says Paul, know about God, but they “neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him” (Romans 1:21).
Carnal Christians likewise fail to thank God regularly for his many blessings. They suffer from what might best be described as selective memories and live by their feelings rather than by faith. They are prone to forget the blessings of yesterday as they thanklessly barrage the throne of grace with new request each day.
And thankfulness flows from the sure knowledge that our heavenly Father knows exactly what we need and will supply it.


I will bless the Lord at all times;
His praise shall continually be on my lips.
My soul shall make its boast in the Lord;
The humble shall hear of it and be glad.
O magnify the Lord with me,
And let us exalt His name together. (Psalms 34:1-3)

Supplication

In the context of having regular communication with God, our heavenly Father desires that his children will bring their requests before his throne of grace with praise and thanksgiving. After all, it was his Son Jesus who taught the disciples to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.”
And as we do so we must be ever mindful of the fact that the purpose of supplication is not to pressure God into providing us with provisions and pleasures, but rather to conform us to his eternal purposes.

Psalm 37
Delight yourself also in the Lord,
And He shall give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your way to the Lord,
Trust also in Him,
And He shall bring it to pass. (Psalms 4-5)

Conclusion

Indeed, as I have experienced firsthand, prayer is a beautiful foretaste of something we will experience for all eternity. Let the Psalms guide you daily into communication and communion with our loving Father!

35 comments:

Don said...

I use the same structure. Thanks, Mr. Hanegraaff!

T. James Archibald said...

Is there a danger though with praying the Psalms, since David and I are under different covenants. I wonder.

Boris said...

Yes, don't pray the wrong way or offer incense without the proper rigmarole. You could be burned alive the way God burned up Aaron's two sons for not offering the incense just the way their burning goat flesh sniffing God wanted it offered. Be very very careful, God might just burn you alive. How arrogant does a person have to be to think that the creator of hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars in them is even interested in their prayers let alone wants to answer them? We laugh when we see a savage praying to a rock but when we see a knucklehead on his knees praying to the wind we are supposed to respect that superstition. Why?

James said...

Because God CREATED us and He loves and cares for us! Oh wait, you don't believe that.

Boris said...

God loves and cares for us and in his infinite mercy he'll send us to hell to be tortured for all eternity if we cannot twist our brains into a useless pretzel and try to believe that. The Christian definition of love is a strange one indeed.

James said...

Christian definition of Love:
"Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud."

Strange?!?! It sounds normal to me!

Boris said...

James,
In much the same why that in Christianity truth is torn away from the realm of fact, love is removed from the realm of human affections. Human love is disparaged as frail and fickle, while agape - unselfish, altruistic love that is from God - is held up as ideal. This can appeal greatly to converts disappointed with their human relationships. Yet, it has little to do with what we usually think of as love: affection, sharing thoughts and feelings, caring, accepting, supporting, and so on. It is a mental activity of adhering to a code. A Christian "loves" a sinner because God "loves" a sinner and one must follow suit. Love to the evangelist is simply a willingness to put up with a sinner in order to obey the commission r to preach the gospel. Thus the Christian can say, without noticing the inconsistency, "I love the sinner, but not the sin." To the uninitiated, this is a strange kind of love that tries to divorce persons from their activities and then judges those activities with amazing ferocity. In this type of love, there is no desire to know or be known, which in our everyday understanding, underlies the condition of love. Normally the development of intimacy in human relations involves increasing levels of self-disclosure and mutual acceptance based on equal standing. In contrast, the Christian preaching the gospel is by no means acting vulnerable, while working hard to find a vulnerable spot in the potential proselyte. Redefining words is also a way to control emotions.

You have to understand James, that I know all the tricks that evangelists use to get young people like you to accept their religious superstitions. People such as you who haven't been taught the art of critical thinking or been exposed to a philosophical worldview are easy prey for evangelists because they cannot spot the logical fallacies in their preaching or the way they control your thoughts by redefining words and distorting the language. The evangelists are so sincere because they believe what they are telling you themselves. All that means however, is that they've fallen prey to the same trickery they are using on people like you. I'm doing you a favor. You just don't realize it - yet.

Don said...

With all respect, Boris, all your words will not cause us young ones to deny our Faith. I've talked to atheists who tell me to keep up the good work of sharing the Gospel. No words, however intellectual, will stop us from sharing the Gospel and becoming a backslider in our Faith.

Keep up the good work, James! Do not let anyone, Boris included, stop you from your mission of being a disciple for Christ. We need more people like you to share the Good News... even when we encounter opposition. Keep a strong backbone!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. Logical fallacies. Kinda like the hasty generalization you make about the church founders being gay pedophiles?

James said...

Boris,
I also know the tricks atheists use too! You are using one of them.

Just because I'm young, doesn't make any difference. Yes, we think critically and that's why we want and passionately desire to share the Gospel.

Atheists like you try to say "We're right and those brainless creationists are wrong." Yes, I know your ways, you like you try to suck people into the belief that "There is no God."

Charles Darwin even "believed" in God. In 'The Origin of Species' Charles Darwin even admitted that the eye is such a sophisticated work of engineering that the very idea of an eye forming by chance is preposterous. Look for yourself (Charles Darwin, 'The Origin of Species' [London: Penguin Classics, 1985], 217)

Ditto to you too Don! Boris only fuels my desire even more to spread the Good News!:-) His tricks sure work alright, but the opposite of what he wants! ;)

Praise our Creator that He has given us 'young ones' backbone and discernment to see!

Boris said...

James,
Charles Darwin believed in God when he was young as most people do. But later in life like most people he could no longer believe. He wrote: "There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with a mouse." This is one of the reasons I don't believe any God created the universe or life on Earth. Whose idea was it that almost every animal on the planet would spend its entire life in fear of being eaten by other animals? That just isn't a very good plan.

Charles Darwin didn't understand a lot of things and much of what he did think has been proved wrong. For example Darwin thought humans are descended from Neanderthals. We now know that isn't true but that in no way affects the validity of evolutionary theory. Darwin acknowledged the eye would be difficult for his new theory to explain - but not impossible. Today though scientists have discovered that the first animals having anything resembling eyes lived about 550 million years ago and that eyes have evolved separately at least 8 times. Eyes evolved from light sensitive cells on the skin of primitive animals. Nature flatly contradicts the creationists all or nothing argument that eyes are designed from the top down. In Nature we find life forms with eyes in all different stages of evolution. Compared to bald eagles human beings have "partially developed" eyesight. If you were really interested in learning how eyes evolved you could find out what scientists say about the subject. But you'd rather cling to your religion and your escapist fantasies and think eyes just magically popped into existence a few thousand years ago. I really don't care. Just stop trying to get me to believe that nonsense. It's never going to happen.

Kevin said...

Actually, Boris, it will happen one day. But it will then be too late for you.

Don said...

Agree Kevin! Mark 10:27

Jerett O said...

Boris I really don't understand why you are still on this blog? You are just making people angry? Which is funny because you are saying are one being loving to Christian. You argue and attack every point. I respect your passion of your beliefs but should try to be more understanding, kind and gentle.

Do you go on Jewish and Islamic Website to arguing with them as well? It seems you are using a lot of miss place energy. Maybe you should write a book instead and get all your anger out or maybe take on Christian Debaters, or you could start your own blog and state your own believes.

You may not agree with Christianity but respect people enough and not force your beliefs on other people. You attack Christian saying they are forcing there beliefs on people but you are forcing your believes on them. Even Jesus told his believers if people don't listen to you then leave the town. You got your point across no really is listening so I suggest you move on.

These Christians have been loving, respectful and gentle with you, so I wondering if you will to do same for us.

SteveH said...

All:
In Boris’ first comment in this thread he refers to an incident covered in Leviticus 9 and 10—two of Aaron’s four sons were consumed by fire from God when they offered incense that was not authorized by God. In context, this occurred at a critically unique moment in biblical history: Aaron and his sons had just been consecrated as the first Levitical priests. God next prescribed exactly how the first tabernacle service was to be conducted. That culminated in the appearance of the “glory of the Lord before all the people”. The prescribed practices, included “atonement” sacrifices which are an Old Testament “type and shadow” pointing to Jesus and His sacrificial death on the cross. The whole sacrificial system is connected to the NT in the way it pointed towards Jesus.

In a similar way, God also prescribed exactly how the tent and the articles of worship were to be made because these are all “earthly copies” of the “heavenly realities” (see Hebrews). The atonement sacrifices and first tabernacle service should also be understood to be earthly copies of heavenly truths. So following God’s prescriptions concerning the atonement and the form of the first service was a very big deal. Drawing mustaches on a picture from God is clearly disrespectful.

When Aaron’s two sons, on their own initiative, undertook to “add their own stuff” to the prescribed activities given by God they were seeking to show off. They were drawing mustaches on a picture that God had painted. God dealt with what they did swiftly. If you doubt God’s words, His actions speak louder than His words. Disrespect of God was judged in this case; meaning it will be judged in the eternal sense in every case.

As God states at Leviticus “among those who are near to me I will be sanctified, and before all the people, I will be glorified”. Aarons’ sons by their actions sought to sanctify and bring glory to themselves, not God. And God justly ended their earthly life. But let’s not misunderstand earthly judgment to necessarily say anything at all concerning the mercy God may yet show when resolving their eternal state.

And so you may ask what does this incident have to do with Christian prayer? Nothing! Boris reasons wrongly when he attempts to make a point about prayer which is not related to the incident he quotes. The passage is taken out of context; to present a pretext that this Old Testament passage teaches that Christians must comply with a “ritualized prayer practice” or run the risk of being burned up by God. As has long been known a text taken out of context and presented as a pretext is always a lie.

Boris next refers to God as a “burning goat flesh sniffing God”. This is so typical of Boris, hereafter I should refer to the mere hurling of an irrelevant insult as “a Boris”. Biblically, speaking of God in this way is called blasphemy.
Boris concludes his "logical argument" by asserting that Christians who pray are knuckleheads on their knees, superstitiously praying to the wind just as a savage might pray to a rock. I’m sure you already recognize what this is. That’s right, it’s another “Boris”.

Sadly, Boris has revealed himself as a blasphemer and a liar. As I have previously pointed out, he needs to repent of his sins and believe the gospel.

Hank has presented practical advice concerning an approach to prayer. Boris’ argument that Hank has presented a ‘ritualized prayer requirement’ fails completely.

Boris said...

Jerett O
It's amazing that people can constantly complain about the content of my posts on this blog yet it still seems like no one is reading them because I have to answer the same questions over and over and over again. I have explained many times the reason why I'm on this blog. This war is between me and Hank Hanegraaff. When Hank posts something I criticize it. Hank Hanegraaff has a very shallow understanding of most of the things he writes about and a reckless disregard for the truth. I'm here so that Hank knows I know that he's a liar. You people who jump to Hank's defense or going to be criticized too. If you just stayed out of this fight you would just be collateral casualties. But when you defend Hank Hanegraaff you are an enemy combatant, an enemy of the truth and the faculty by which man arrives at truth: reason. For that reason you're going to get your feelings hurt unless you just ignore me.

Boris said...

If the whole sacrificial system in the OT is connected to the NT then why does every Jewish rabbi in the world say this isn't so? Oh that's right, the people who have been handed these traditions directly from the people who first wrote of them have been blinded to the "truth." Sure. There is nothing about Jesus anywhere in the Old Testament. Anyone who thinks there is should google the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. There one will learn exactly how the New Testament writers tore Old Testament passages out of their original context and away from their intended meanings and reinterpreted them to pound their Jesus into the role of a coming messiah. The New Testament is not in any way connected to the Jewish scriptures. The New Testament was originally written in Greek by people who could not even read Hebrew. We know this because Jesus quotes from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew books leaving in all the mistranslations and mistakes. A Jewish preacher who only spoke Greek. Sure. No wonder the Pharisees mistrusted him in the story!

I never said anything about Hank offering a ritualized prayer requirement. I was being facetious, mocking prayer and the people who engage in this ridiculous ancient superstitious practice. It doesn't matter how you pray because there's no one listening. Mark Twain once said, "I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious." You Christians are such humorless miserable people you can't even tell when someone is having a little fun at your expense.

Only the religious mind could write several paragraphs defending a death sentence for two people drawing attention to themselves. This Yahweh is quite a jealous and vain God isn't he. He acts like a small spoiled child when people don't pay him the attention he thinks he deserves. Yahweh burned up 250 priests who were offering incense and then when Korah complained God killed him and his entire family by having the ground open up and swallow them alive. Then when other people complained about that God killed 14,700 more people with a plague. No sane person could justify this atrocity or death sentences for speaking one's mind. But thinking isn't allowed in religion and this story was written to explain exactly why that is - by human beings.

I love being called a blasphemer. Call me an anti-Christ too because I'm definitely that also and proud of it. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. I should believe that there's a God who killed almost 15,000 people for murmuring but yet he lets a blasphemer like me live. Here I am God, you big fairy, come and get me if you've got the guts. I'm calling you out big man where are you? Answer up. Something tells me that once again God is going to be a no show.

Anonymous said...

Boris, if your war is with Hank then your war is with us. Even though i do not agree with everything Hank says, i test it and in the end were all still brothers in Christ so by trashing a brother you trash the rest of us. I have never seen so much hate in a person. It is depressing but i hope someone can come into your life and open your mind to see the light. Weather you like it or not you will meet God when you die and like everyone of us we will all have to answer for our sinful deeds so there is no escape from that. Yet there is hope if you choose to seek it out.

Boris said...

Anonymous,
Christians justify their inability to prove their ridiculous claims by invoking the supposed "virtue of faith," and using fear to indoctrinate potential converts. If Christian fear-mongering were directed solely at adults it would be bad enough. Christian evangelists however, find it impossible and get very frustrated attempting to convert adult atheists. In order to sooth the distress of their failures at evangelism Christians routinely terrorize helpless children through grizzly depictions of the endless horrors and suffering they'll supposedly be subjected to if they don't live good Christian lives and accept Jesus. This is child abuse and one of the greatest crimes against humanity this evil and false religion has perpetrated on humanity. And it's the sole reason Christianity has survived into the 21rst century. Truth has nothing to do with Christianity's success but rather fear has everything to do with it. Look at what you're doing. I ask for evidence and you give me fear-mongering instead. You have no evidence for your beliefs or you would share it. Instead all you can share are the fear-induced superstitions OTHER PEOPLE indoctrinated you with.

Throughout its entire time on Earth the motor driving Christianity has been fear, fear of death, fear of the devil, fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. Using fear as a motivational force is not an attempt to convince through logic and reason; rather it is an attempt to whip people into line through threats, through a base part of human nature - fear and cowardice.

Of course the threat of hell is impotent unless the convert has little or no grasp of science and has never learned the art of critical analysis. This is why your cult leaders purposely distort science and defame scientists - so you won't trust either one. Nope, you'll trust people who have been proved to be liars - people who have lied about science, about their own credentials, people who have taken quotes out of context to make it seem like scientists said one thing when they said the opposite and people who have a political agenda that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. You are being manipulated by your cult leaders for their political purposes. You are nothing but a mindless obedient pawn in a political struggle.

SteveH said...

Hello All;

In Boris’ recent response he uses the classic “I didn’t say that” defense when he writes “I never said anything about Hank offering a ritualized prayer requirement”. But, here is what Boris wrote in the original post commenting on Hank’s practical prayer advice: “Yes, don't pray the wrong way or offer incense without the proper rigmarole. You could be burned alive.” It’s plain that Boris was arguing against the “proper rigmarole” he believes Hank advocated as a part of Christian prayer.

Next he uses the “in case I did say it (which he did), I didn’t mean it” argument. He admits that he was being facetious and mocking prayer. Since I already showed that Boris' other statements in the post were just insults: Boris’ and I finally agree on something: the entirety of his initial post was mere slander. It is completely devoid of any intelligent argumentation or points.

It is worthwhile to note that Boris does not refute my argument that he took an Old Testament passage out of context to make a point about prayer. His silence most likely admits the error. But Boris hopes we won’t notice as he “changes the subject”. Boris’ new “main point” is that the passage in question says something about God’s character, different from the explanation I offered. According to Boris the taking of the lives of Aaron’s two sons for an “insignificant offense” reveals that God is “jealous, vain and petty.” This is clearly an important point he wants to make since he wastes a lot of paper bolstering this argument with a long list of other Old Testament judgment events. Boris means to argue that taken together all of these prove God is “jealous, vain and petty”.

Boris proves his own argument is in error as follows: He dismisses the New Testament understanding of the Old Testament by presenting Jewish rabbis as an ultimate authority. He presents them as experts on the Old Testament because they were the ones “first handed the traditions and who wrote about them”. He expresses complete confidence in their understanding of how NT writers tore OT passages out of context to make Jesus the Messiah. Remembering that Boris’ main point is that God is jealous, vain and petty—his expert witnesses disagree profoundly. The Jewish faith does not teach that God is “jealous, vain or petty”. Instead they teach that God is the Creator of all things. He is Holy and righteous. He executes justice against sinners. Christians and Jewish rabbis agree on these points. Neither Jew nor Christian is going to come to the aid of Boris’ primary point. By all standards of consistent reasoning, Boris has refuted his own argument by presenting an expert witness who disagrees with the point he was trying to make.

Frankly, it’s absurd that Boris appeals to any sort of “traditional thinking” as inherently superior to “new thoughts”. His atheistic beliefs and new age thinking are not traditional. If those who first wrote about traditions and continue to hold fast to them must be understood to be correct; then Boris’ new way of thinking must be wrong according to his own definition.

I should also point out that the vast majority of the NT was written by Jews named Paul, John, James and Peter. It documents and discusses a Jew named Jesus. Christianity is Jewish in its origins; being a “New Covenant” followed by Jews who then accepted gentiles as brothers. This is not unlike the way that America is English in its origins. Christianity has every logical right to argue for its understanding of the Old Testament. Our spiritual fathers were also the ones to whom the traditions were first handed down and who first wrote about them. Reason demands that the arguments should be accepted or rejected on the basis of individual merit; not on the basis of who holds the opinion.

Boris claims to have reason and facts on his side. But, he again shows that nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, it appears Boris has never thought about what he believes; he just blindly believes it—shouting it from the rooftops like a madman.

Boris said...

Steve,
You can't read the Greek New Testament so you don't even know what it says. I paid my dues learning how to read Ancient Greek in high school and college. I have proved just how carefully and completely I've studied the Bible on this blog by presenting insurmountable problems in the text no one on this blog can explain or even knew existed before I presented them. In other words I have proved that it is YOU and the rest of the CHRISTIANS on this blog who have NOT thought about what you believe at all and that you just blindly believe it on the say so of OTHER PEOPLE. That's what's really going on here. Not only don't you have any answers for the problems I have pointed out in the text of the Bible you don't have the nerve to accept my challenge and solve these problems because you know it will only bring these problems further into the light and prove me right.

Have you even looked at the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53? How do you know it isn't correct if you don't even know what it says? Well I'm a Jew and I know how rabbis interpret the Old Testament and I know how the New Testament writers purposely misinterpreted it for their own religious and political purposes. You are a classic case of a person who has heard and will only listen to one side of an issue. You won't consider dissenting opinions because of your fear that they are correct and yours isn't. Plus you believe what you believe because you are afraid not to. You are afraid to consider anything that might make you question your faith because the fear of hell controls your every thought. Therefore you can't make a rational decision about your religion or anything else.

I do have reason and facts on my side as well as the one thing that has always scared the living poop out of Bible believers and that is SCIENCE. That's right advancing science is steamrolling what's left of your evil and false religion right into the trash can of history. Shouldn't have stood in the way of scientific and social progress for the last 2000 years. Those things have finally won out.

Anonymous said...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615311679/ref=s9_simi_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=13X7NGNACTDJBXRBQT1Y&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

Jerett O said...

Boris. I'm sorry if your see this as war. I agree with Hank but that is not why I start to commenting to you. I start commenting because I saw man in great conflict and anger. I want to see if I could understand your perspective and have a conversation. I have found that not be possible, which is probably why Hank does not talk to you either. Instead I would like to pray for you.

Dear Heavily Father, I pray for Boris. That you will help him to see your truth and love. That you will help him to be understanding, respectful, gentle, kind and loving. I pray you can open Boris mind to your truth. I pray Boris will see fallacious arguments of the world and see that they lead to meaninglessness and death. Pray you will reveal your power in his life and bless him. Boris is your lost sheep Lord, that I pray will find you one day. I pray fro your will be done in Boris's life. I thank you Lord for that you give. I Jesus name. Amen

Boris said...

Jerret O
I am not angry or conflicted. You need to tell yourself that because you Christians cannot accept the fact that we atheists are happy well-adjusted people. We atheists decline to be the miserable people you Christians tell us we should be and that just angers you to no end. Atheists are living proof no one needs Jesus nor do they need to fear absurdities such as Satan and hell. What really bothers you however, is that atheists and other unbelievers are living happy satisifying lives doing many of the things you Christians wish you could enjoy and the things you do enjoy you wish you could enjoy without guilt. Like sex for example. No Bible believing Christian can have a completely satisfying sex life simply because they always feel guilty for enjoying any earthly pleasures. But they know we atheists can and do enjoy healthy satisfying GUILT FREE sex. This just drives fundy Christians nuts as we can easily surmise from the things they say in their no-choice anti-feminist propaganda. You people think sex is a contract to have children. You're sick, unhappy, frustrated, guilt-ridden, miserable people and angry that the rest of us aren't. The laughs the rest of us have at your expense hurts you deeply too, I can tell. Good. You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

In your prayer you talk about fallacious arguments of the world but who told you the Bible was literally true and every word must be believed or you would be punished by an angry vengeful God for all eternity in hell? Who convinced you that you were a sinner in need of redemption? Who told you there was a God? How do you know the arguments used to indoctrinate you into this particular religion weren't fallacious arguments of the world? How do you know the arguments in the Bible aren't fallacious arguments of the world? Let's look at one of them shall we?

"They are from the world; therefore what they say is from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." - 1John 4:5-6

This is how we should know truth from error? Are you kidding me? On another person's claim that they are from God and we should listen to them? You go ahead. You listen to them. You believe whatever they tell you. I find that kind of religious dogma totally unbelievable and unacceptable. Truth doesn't demand belief. Like our deistic founders said, truth is self evident.

The fallacy of your prayer is that if there really were a God who could read my mind this God would know exactly why I did not believe he existed: Because I did not believe what other people claimed about their various Gods and religions. Because there was no empirical evidence for this God's existence. There is no way a beneficent, merciful, loving God could hold my unbelief against me. Of course the God YOU worship and believe exists is far from beneficent, merciful or loving.

"The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious... One only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), third U.S. president. Which one are you?

Jerett O said...

Boris you could find evil in a pray.

I have very happy sex life with my wife. Their has been study done that married Christian Couples have more satisfying sex then atheists such as your self. In USA TODAY,February 11, 1999, Thursday, FINAL EDITION, title 'Aha! Call it the revenge of the church ladies' BYLINE: William R. Mattox Jr. SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 15A, talks about scientific study proven Christian couple have more satisfying sex.

You choose not to believe the evidence and any evidence put infront of you explain it away. You have classic social narrative, why is that you can only understand things from your point of view and anying out side of it does not make sense.

As for evidence why don't you read: Case for Christ, Case for the Real Jesus, Case for a Creator, Case for faith, More then a Carpender, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdic, For Darwin to Hitler, Darwins Black Boxs, The Design Revolution, Signature in the Cell, The Privileged Planet.

Here is a web site that shows all the scintist who question the theory of evolution http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660, there about 700 right now and increasing every year.

Boris said...

Jerret o,
The hypocrisy drips from every word you write. YOU are the one with a biblical worldview and anything outside of THAT narrow-minded and bigoted way of looking at the world doesn't make sense to you. As far as evidence you don't have any evidence. I've seen what passes for evidence for you people and it's a joke. I ask for extra-biblical evidence that Jesus Christ even existed. Invariably I get referred to the works of Josephus, a person who wasn't even alive during the time Jesus Christ supposedly existed and wrote 60 years after he supposedly died! I hate to tell you this but that's hearsay, and not even first or second or hundredth hand hearsay and totally unacceptable as evidence. What it proves is that you don't have a shred of evidence for anything you believe if that's the best extra-biblical evidence for your Jesus you can come up with. And it is. No honest scholar thinks Josephus wrote those golden paragraphs anyway. They are widely accepted as forgeries by every honest scholar familiar with them.

I have read Lee Strobel's drivel and I read the first Evidence that Demands a Verdict too. Both authors base all their arguments on the circular idea that the Bible is true because it says it is. They present absolutely nothing from outside the Bible to support their claims that anything in the Bible is actually true. All of those books you mentioned have been refuted by critics and you can find these refutations on the Internet. Will you read the refutations of these books? I bet you won't because you afraid the critics are right and your dishonest, delusional and desperate cult leaders are not.

Anyone who tries to connect Darwin or evolution to Hitler is just a liar and invariably a Christian propagandist. Christian apologists have been trying to erase Hitler's Christianity from history for obvious reasons. But the Holocaust was caused by Christian fundamentalism and it was done by Catholic and evangelical Christians. It was really just another Christian crusade and inquisition and the anti-Semitism was purely Christian. Adolpf Hitler was a devout Christian and never once mentioned Charles Darwin or the Theory of Evolution. Ever. He did however mention his love for Jesus Christ constantly. Hitler was mainly influenced by Jesus Christ by his own words and his three years in a Christian seminary where he studied the works of the deranged theologian and famous anti-Semite Martin Luther. One of Hank's and your heroes too no doubt. Have you ever read Luther's most infamous book: "On the Jews and Their Lies" or heard of it? Because that book is where Hitler got his ideas for the Holocaust, NOT from evolution. Hitler was a Christian creationist just like you. Like you he did not accept evolution. He also stamped out atheism and the Nazi public schools taught Christian creationism and NOT evolution. This remained so until 1961 when by then the only other public school system not teaching evolution and still teaching Christian creationism was South Africa. We see the kind of political ideology Christian creationism breeds as we can witness this ideology alive and well today among American Bible believing Christians just like you.

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." - Adolph Hitler

Isn't your goal to stamp out atheism and make everyone in the world accept your religion? In what way are you different than brother Adolpf? Just less effective huh?

Boris said...

700 scientists doubt evolution out of how many million scientists in the world? Are you kidding me? That's pretty pathetic for your side isn't it? ROFL! Not only that I've looked at this list and all but a few, less than 10 are Bible believing Christians. Imagine that coincidence. Not only that NONE of these scientists are qualified to speak on the subject of evolutionary biology because all of these scientists work in unrelated fields. One needs to examine not how many scientists believe something, but what their conviction is based on. When all of the scientists just happen to be Bible believers we know their convictions are religious and not based on science. Also I've already refuted this stupid argument previously on this blog. You creationists make the same tired arguments because you read the exact same propaganda. Your intellectual dishonesty is demonstarted by the fact that there are clear and meticulous refutations of all you claims on the same Internet where you get your religious lies from. Yet you ignore these refutations and post these lies of yours as if these refutations don't even exist. What's worse is that when someone like me raises objections to your false claims you don't respond to those objections but go right on making the same false claims as if no objections had been raised. Your case is so full of holes this is the only way you can survive a debate with any critic of your absurd belief system.

Signature in a Cell. How does this author know what the first primitive cells on Earth were like? This whole stupid book looks at the only examples we have of cells, cells that are the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution and marvels at their complexity. Talk about backward reasoning! The first cells were likely a whole lot different and less complex than anything on Earth today. Wow, what a stupid premise for a book and I guess unbeknown to you the scientific community just had a field day ripping this book to shreds. If these books are where you are getting your ideas about science and the Bible then it is no wonder that you don't know the first thing about either one. Hahahaha.

Jerett O said...

Boris, You call me a narrow-minded and bigoted. Lets us look at the definition of bigoted. Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." You are the one who is on Christian blog attacking Christians with your anger and hatred. If anyone is being not accepting and intolerant of other peoples beliefs, it would be you.

Just be honest you just don't believe God and that's okay that is your choice but don't force your view on others.

I would like to say it is great that you have read some of these books. Many people would of never read these books.

I hope you have a great day.

Did you read the US Today article?

Boris said...

Jerret O,
I don't hate Christians. Love the Christian hate the Christianity, I always say. Sound familiar? Criticizing a person's beliefs or an entire belief system is not attacking them. I post criticisms of Hank's posts and then other people challenge my posts. I debunk their challenges. That is what is going on here. No one is attacking anyone. I am not respectful of people's religious beliefs by why should I be? S.T. Joshi wrote: "The atheist, agnostic, or secularist... should not be cowed by exaggerated sensitivity to people's religious beliefs... Those who advocate a piece of folly like the theory of an 'intelligent creator' should be held accountable for their folly; they have no right to be offended for being called fools until they establish that they are not in fact fools."

I don't have a problem with most people who identify themselves as Christians. I have a problem with the small but vocal minority of Christians who take the Bible literally, claim it is the inerrant Word of God, insist their brand of religious based pseudo-science be taught in our public school science classes, indoctrinate small children with fear induced superstitions about the devil and hell, make poor decisions in the voting booth, wish to turn women in this country into government owned breeding animals.... I could go on for a very a long time.

Atheists are not people who "choose" not to believe in God. We find it impossible to believe in God in exactly the same way you find it impossible to believe in ghosts.

I read a few of those books but I'm familiar with all of them. I have read criticisms of all of them too. I suggest you do the same. Here is the problem with creationists like Michael Behe who attack science and try to stand in the way of scientific and medical progress:

"One of Michael Behe's favorite alleged examples of "irreducible complexity" is the immune system. Let Judge Jones himself take up the story:

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'

Behe, under cross-examination by Eric Rothschild, chief counsel for the plaintiffs, was forced to admit that he hadn't read most of those fifty-eight peer-reviewed papers. Hardly surprising, for immunology is hard work. Less forgiving is that Behe did dismiss such research as 'unfruitful.' It certainly is unfruitful if your aim is to make propaganda among gullible laypeople and politicians, rather than to discover important truths about the real world. After listening to Behe, Rothschild eloquently summed up what every honest person in that courtroom must have felt:

"Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.

If the creationists got their way they would put an end to scientific and medical progress. Your movement is dangerous and anti-human.

Jerett O said...

Boris, what you do not understand is that the idea of the Bible being the inerrant Word of God is directly connect to being a Christine. If the Bible is not the inerrant word of God that then our faith is nothing. It is just like say that atheist can believe there is not a God but at same time not believe in science. For an atheist not believing God and believing in science are related to each other. For many atheists it is their belief in science that makes them doubt God exists.

As for indoctrination, what group dose not that for one degree to another. Even the way you talk can be seen as indoctrination, teaching people fear Christian and their ideas. Fear is only good when it creates morally good actions. Our country has laws so people will choose the right actions, but is done with fear of consequences. However to create fear so people fear a group of people because of their beliefs, values, race, or anything else is wrong. What far better then fear understands. Which I think you believe in as well. So let us try understanding each other. We don't have to agree, just understand each other.

Hank maybe very overt in his belief in the Bible, but he is more understanding of your position then a lot of Christians are. How many Christian have met where they will try answer your question using history, logic, and science? I'm sure it is not many, but Hank is one of the few people who are willing to uses reason, history, logic and science to defend his beliefs. Hanks is trying create a more educate Christian population. He is not like the Christian who would just say "We are right and every else is wrong because the Bible says so." No he uses external arguments from the bible to support his beliefs.

By the way Judge Jones, as I'm sure will agree is not scientist and is not qualify to Judge withier intelligent design is science or not. It take a years for Judge to get a full understand of biological science, theory and intelligent design. It is for academic world to do science, test, write, and argue not Judges of federal courts. The academic world only works when freedom of ideas exists.

If you go to Discovery Institute Web site you will find that do not believe that intelligent design should be taught in school. Rather they would like schools to show both side of evolution: the good and bad. What can evolution real prove and what it can't. Also look what has happen to science senses intelligent design has showed up it has force scientist of evolution to work harder to defend their position, doing more science. The job of scientist is to test, test, test and find the truth. That is what you are doing testing and that is good, but it only works well when we keep an open mind and stay level headed.

So I would just like to ask you what made you become an atheist in the first place? I not interest in your justification for it right now. I just want to know what was the one thing that made you finally say, there is no God.

Boris said...

Jerrot O
Don't tell me I don't understand Christian dogma. I understand it a lot better than you do which is why I've never been indoctrinated by it. I know better. The reason you were indoctrinated with an absurd assumption that the Bible is inerrant Word of God is because it isn't. That's why you've been convinced by OTHER PEOPLE you must believe that and that you would be punished with unimaginable violence if you didn't. Your faith is truly in nothing. If the Bible were really what OTHER PEOPLE convinced you it is, you wouldn't have to be frightened by OTHER PEOPLE into believing it. You would never believe a story about dead people coming back to life, unburying themselves and walking into a city and appearing to many other people if you read or heard it any other place but the Bible. The use of fear forced you to believe what under normal circumstances you would otherwise surely disbelieve.

I already proved not believing in God and accepting science are not always related. What science did the Greek philosophers have 2500 years ago that made them remain atheists? Sure, today modern science makes believing in God impossible for educated intelligent people. Conversely, a person such as yourself having little or no knowledge of even basic science, is easy pray for Christian evangelists and their anti-scientific claims about magic, magical beings and miracles.

Only the religious mind could say that fear is a good thing when used to create morally good actions. The morals and ethics of atheists are based on critical analysis rather than fear. A person such as you who claims fear of consequences is the reason people obey laws, rather than respect for those laws and other human beings must lack any inclination to do good, but only evil. This clearly demonstrates that the morals and ethics of atheists are vastly superior to those of Christians or any other theists.

Hank is not at all understanding of atheists and he redefines atheism in his own dogmatic terms and for his own purposes. Hank claims atheists don't really even exist and that everyone really believes in God. How would he even know that in the first place? He doesn't and his claims are as untrue as any lies ever told on this planet. Hank Hanegraaff does NOT ever use history, logic or science to defend his absurd claims. There isn't ANYTHING in history that could support anything in the Bible. Hank's arguments are so full of logical fallacies any first year philosophy student could easily spot them. But then too could most 5th graders. Hank doesn't know the first thing about science. He gets all his information from creationist anti-science propaganda and he constantly makes derogatory statements about the scientific community and defamatory statements about individual scientists and scientists in general. There isn't ANYTHING in history, logic, science or anything else that could support any Christian dogma or doctrine. Give me some of the arguments from outside the Bible Hank uses and I'll show you exactly why they fail miserably. Don't ignore this challenge. You think Hank's arguments are good so let's see you prove it.

Freedom of ideas does exist and in the scientific community more than any other place. No avenue of human endeavor is more open to scrutiny than science. However, academic freedom does not exist in elementary and secondary schools. Teachers cannot teach what ever they want to they have to stick with the curriculum. Christianity on the other hand, places itself above all criticism and its claims are not subject to experimentation, prediction, revision, or falsification. To Christians, these pursuits are irrelevant because they believe they possess the "truth" as set forth in the Bible.

Boris said...

Continued...
"There is obviously an important difference between an establishment [i.e., science] that is open... and one that regards the questioning of its credentials as due to wickedness of heart, such as [Cardinal] Newman attributed to those who questioned the infallibility of the Bible. Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal lack of faith." - Morris R. Cohen (1880-1947), American professor of philosophy and law.

Your claim that Judge Jones or anyone else is not qualified to decide whether Intelligent Design magic is science or not is ludicrous. Anyone with a basic knowledge of what science is, what science does (that it must produce tangible results that advance knowledge) and why we even study nature in the first place knows ID is NOT science. It's nothing more biblical creationism disguised in a lab coat. This is what was proved at the trial Judge Jones presided over.

Contrary to the claims of the Discoveroids, there are no "bad" sides of evolution. Furthermore secondary school students are not qualified to make their own decisions on the validity of major scientific theories. If you think Intelligent Design magic was ever a threat to the scientific community you're just kidding yourself. It was a threat to science education in this country but scientists did a great job of exposing ID magic for the Christian religious dogma that it really is.

Christians always ask the wrong questions. Nothing made me become an atheist. Like everyone else I was born an atheist and never saw any reason to adopt any religious beliefs or what other people claimed about the particular God they believed in. Even as a small child, the claims people made about an invisible, mind reading man in the sky seemed ridiculous. Not a bit less ridiculous than similar claims about a jolly fat man bringing toys to good little girls and boys or a magic egg delivering rabbit or the explanation for the quarters under my pillow after I had placed a tooth under it the night before. It takes no faith not to believe something that is evidently false.

We were both born atheists. The question really is what made YOU change? What made you believe in God while I retained my natural human curiosity and skepticism and the tendency to disbelieve absurd stories presented with no evidence to back them up?

Jerett O said...

It has been nice talking to you but it seems it has been waste of time. Thought he talk and try understand each other but all you can do criticizes people that don't take your position. I think you need to look at the definition of Bigot again

Merriam-Webster defines bigot as: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

If you really care about understanding Christianity you would of at least spell my name right. Jerett O not Jerrot O.

I guess this is my last response to you unless you are will to be understanding instead of criticizing. You don’t want conversation you want to dominate over other people thoughts and ideas.

I have nice day. I hope you can learn how to be understanding of people.

Boris said...

Jerret O,
I have a complete understanding of Christianity which is why I know better than to believe people when they tell me their own ideas about it. Just because my understanding is different and much more sophisticated than yours doesn't make it wrong. You are the one who has been duped by the lies of an evil and false religion, not me. Too bad you don;t realize this. The chances are very good you will eventually though as 5000 American Christians reject their faith every day. You could be next. Start thinking for yourself and catch up on the last 500 years of science. That will do the trick. Works EVERY time.

96toLife said...

Hank writes, "While unconfessed sin will not break our union with God, it will break our communion with God." However, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 says, "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them." How can can "unconfessed sin" break our communion with God when He is not counting our sins against us? Fact is, our sins don't break communion or anything else we have with God.