I see this argument over and over again, and it's probably *THE* most commonly structured argument by a significant margin. The "therefore..." part of the argument is sometimes implied in a question that it is expected that Christians will struggle to answer.

I don't pretend that there aren't tough questions for Christians and Christianity. But these types of questions do have easy answers. The answer is that you don't know the Christian God well enough. I would wager that over 90% of the people who ask these types of questions or make these types of comments have never pursued getting to know the Christian God other than trying to disprove his existence.

It's not worth my time to try to argue these points. I don't have the desire to engage those conversations, and I don't see any benefit from the expended effort for either side of the table. That's why I usually stay out of these threads and stay away from those arguments.

It will always come down to you having some definition in your head (*this* is what "all-loving" means, or *this* is what "all-powerful" means) that is inconsistent with who God is. It's sort of the same to me as asking whether God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. It's not really a discussion about God, but about the categories and words chosen for how we attempt to describe God.

We use definitions and categories to help us think about objects, but our definitions and categories do not actually define the objects in question, except to ourselves. This can be taken in the sense of a personal definition (this is what I mean be...) or a collective definition (dictionary-type definitions).

This problem (not knowing the Christian God well enough) also leads to Christians losing their faith. When God does not do what people were expecting him to do, they wonder whether "he" is actually out there. But the "he" that they are questioning is not God himself, but their image of him in their head.

This is no new insight. C.S. Lewis wrote of this phenomenon in his book "The Screwtape Letters." In the book, the writer is a supposed higher-level demon writing to a lower-level demon about the ways of being a demon. It's not a book of demonology, but he is merely using this construct as the background for his points.

It's not just prayer. It's everything about God from top to bottom. From trying to grasp the nature of "omnipotence" and trying to understand heaven and hell.

My point is this: The Christian God is not subject to the descriptions that have been attributed to him by Christians (and non-Christians, for that matter). The Christian God is a personal God, in the sense that He is best understood in an "interpersonal" relationship (if such a description is apt for describing the man-God relationship).

Consider a collection of your friends. If your friends were asked to describe you, you would probably find a lot of common aspects of the description, but you will also find that different people who have known you in different contexts use different words to describe you. And even in the areas where there is agreement, those agreed-upon descriptions fall short of adequately describing you. They are merely pictures of you, and rather rough ones at that.

I don't expect anyone to be more or less convinced about who God or whether he exists based on this post. It's merely food for thought for those who are interested in thinking about it.

what about the descriptions of Him that are present in the holy text, and free from context altering meanings. such as His ability to answer prayers. this is all over the bible, and yet clearly false. is it not warranted then to say that if god exists, he does not answer prayers?

1) Quote the passages in context, and first we will attempt to determine whether context matters.
2) What is an "answer" from God? If God doesn't do what is asked, is that equivalent to not answering a prayer?

It's absolutely nothing new; you believe that there is a real God "out there" and that if your labels and conceptual constructs don't work, then you just have to rearrange them or suggest that they don't represent God. (Because you inherently think that if there's a flaw, it's your flaw and not God's flaw.)

I believe that God is a bunch of labels and conceptual constructs. If I destroy the construct, then I destroy God. Of course, it seems awfully disingenuous of you to rearrange the constructs from my perspective - you are creating a whole new God that I have to destroy all over again.

At some point, this gets tiring for everyone involved.

But if you want to provide a rational justification for God, you need to provide definitions and categories. If you avoid doing so, then you're basically suggesting that understanding of God is (first and foremost) subjective. I wish I could directly communicate the fear and unease, moreover the horror, that God internally evokes for me. You want me to sidle right up to that fear and unease and horror and try to establish a relationship with it? Well, I did that. It basically destroyed me emotionally. Once bitten, twice shy. If we really want to throw out the definitions and categories, that is what we're left with.

Since you believe God exists then you must know *something* about him. Name one fact about God and why it is true.

i think what has always been the trouble is self-importance. everyone expects God to fulfill all of their dreams and give them everything they want. "God didn't help me so he doesn't exist?"

where is your proof? if there is a God show me the proof. look at evolution. i asked everyone here how do humans have a higher intelligence. no other animal can do what we do. the answer i received was that our smarts were needed to survive or there was no reason for it, it just spontaneously happened. no scientist can prove this, but you believe these theories more than you believe in God. this shows a great deal of faith, not in God, but in an educated guess.

when you ask us about God, we give you educated guesses just like scientists. but you want to call our educated guesses idiotic. however, when a scientist makes an educated guess, whether its right or not, its more plausible because they try to make the best answer with the evidence or theories they have, even though they can't prove it. we do the same thing.

You are welcome to believe what you choose to believe.

You don't need to participate in this thread.

God is who he is. That's the strongest definition possible. That's how he revealed himself to Moses. That's who he continues to assert himself to be. What is "rational" depends on what you take as your foundational assumptions. You've already stated that you "believe that God is a bunch of labels and conceptual constructs." Therefore, there is little to be done with your desire for a "rational" justification for God. You have defined God to be such-and-such, so what else is there to say?

There are always "subjective" matters within any relationship. Your "subjective" experience is "true" insofar as you truly experienced whatever is you experienced. However, the cause-effect deductions or implications that you draw based on those subjective experiences may or may not be founded in truth. Not knowing you and your past personally (beyond you being formerly Mormon), I am in no position to tell you anything about your experiences.

I am sorry that you feel that God does not exist, and that your past experiences prevent you from seeing God for who He is.

I believe God cares about me enough to capture my attention when I sought after him. I believe this is true because that's what happened to me.

1) are you saying the bible does not tell us god will answer our prayers?

2) as for your last 2 questions. ask yourself if you would have different results if you prayed to a rock. sometimes you'd get what you want, sometimes you wouldnt.

when i was a christian, i prayed every night. and now, obviously i dont pray. and i still find my way through life equally well (actually better.) and i still sometimes get things i want, and i still get answers from within on things im struggling with.

you dont think people who worshipped Ra said prayers to Ra? they'd get answers just as often as you do.

I am asking you to quote the passages that are of particular interest to you.

The road not taken. I don't know what would have happened if I did things differently.

You're still not clear on what an "answer" to prayer is. From what I read here, an answer to prayer is "get what I want." Is this an accurate interpretation?

You might need to change your thread title to:

The Christian God doesn't conform to the categories the bible has defined, therefore...

I'm pretty sure the bible was the first to say people could pray and receive miracles. Not me.

You may be pretty sure of this, but have you bothered to research it? Do you actually know what the Bible says regarding "miracles"? Do you have anything in particular that speaks to the condition of amputees or the little girl who "deserved" a miracle?

No not really. Why would I need to when it's widely agreed upon by religious people and I'm sure if I cared enough to find EXACTLY what it says I could and I highly doubt it would offer anything to enhance understanding of why miracles are or are not performed other than "god works in mysterious ways ldo"

Not really, other than the majority of them are great people who had faith and god never really got around to helping them even though he has the power to.

Fair enough. Willful ignorance is not something I seek to cure in this thread.

Aaron,

I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but wow...you have successfully created a vague enough definition of "God" in your OP, your reply to madnak, and your reply to vix that this god doesn't even have to be the Christian one anymore.

Your definitions bend to be true for everyone's own personal beliefs and allows for an INFINITE amount of goal-post moving. You've made it impossible for this god not to exist, even if he truly doesn't. How could anyone ever argue against what you're saying??

Mark 11:24 "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

John 14:12-14 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."

Matthew 18:19 "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Matthew 21:21 "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Obviously since these refute christian claims, these are only to be taken metaphorically to mean something completely different.

A few more

James 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.


Acts 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.


2 Chronicles 16:12 And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians. 16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign. 16:14 And they buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries' art: and they made a very great burning for him.



If God doesn't conform to peoples categorizations, then I don't need to acknowledge or submit to him or Jesus to be accepted into heaven. Or is that an accurate categorization of the bible?

why dont you tell me, rather than play this game where you continue to ask me a question that we both know the answer to. i was a heartfelt christian for 20 years, so theres really nothing new you could tell me. but lets hear it...whats an answer to a prayer?

Who says there's anything here to argue about? The primary assertion is that "God is who He is, not who we think he is." If you want to argue with that, it's fine with me, but it's not much of an argument. For example, Madnak asserted another description of God, and that's fine.

The primary point:

As best as we are able to describe God, we try to do so. Categories and definitions help us to think about things, but they do not truly define the objects that are being categorized or described. There is something "more" to them. In the same way, God is something "more" than our best efforts at categorization and definition.

Think about all of the concepts people tend to hold that are entirely contradictory to each other:

Freedom-Boundaries: People tend to believe that "freedom" is a good thing. But true "freedom" requires some boundaries, because unrestricted freedom reduces the amount of freedom you really have (because others can take it from you).

Mercy-Justice: People tend to believe it is good to show mercy, and it's also good to see that justice is done. But mercy runs contrary to justice, as mercy is someone not receiving what is due, whereas justice is seeing that someone receives what is due.

"He who hesitates is lost"-"Look before you leap": This is my favorite one because it's built on anecdotal phrases that people tend to agree with in isolation of each other, but when juxtaposed seems really silly. Yet both of these sayings have value and are "true" to at least some extent.

It turns out that wisdom is like that. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and it depends on the context. Categorical refutations of God make for poor arguments as a result.

You sound like an agnostic.

Yeshua was speaking to his talmidim ("disciples"). Apparently, Ya'akov
("James") and Yochanan ("John"), two of the "inner circle" asked Yeshua if
they should call down fire from heaven to destroy some inhospitable people
in Luke 9:51-55, so they believed their "word" (or "prayer") would be fulfilled.
Yeshua, of course, rebuked them.

Luke 9:51-55 (NASB)

51) When the days were approaching for (BB) His ascension, He was determined (BC) to go to Jerusalem;

52) and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the (BD) Samaritans to make arrangements for Him.

53) But they did not receive Him, (BE) because He was traveling toward Jerusalem.

54) When His disciples (BF) James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to (BG) command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"

55) But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of;

56) for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village.

Cross references:

(BB) Luke 9:51 : Mark 16:19
(BC) Luke 9:51 : Luke 13:22; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28
(BD) Luke 9:52 : Matt 10:5; Luke 10:33; 17:16; John 4:4
(BE) Luke 9:53 : John 4:9
(BF) Luke 9:54 : Mark 3:17
(BG) Luke 9:54 : 2 Kin 1:9-16

I agree that answers to some specific questions are unknowable, but
since we communicate with "ideas" (which are then expressed in "words"),
the best we can do is use "ideas" that are understandable; unfortunately,
many people are not willing to consider those "ideas" that were prominent in
the minds of Jews during the ministry of Yeshua.

For the believer in Yeshua as Messiah or the "Christian", two passages better
define the revelatory nature of Hashem ("God"):

John 1:18
----------

No one ("man") has ever seen God, but the only and unique Son, who is at
the Father's side, has made Him known.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (NIV)
--------------

1) In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many
times and in various ways, 2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by
his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made
the universe.

What you're really saying is that people mistake platitudes for wisdom. And yes, they really do. But what I'd describe as "wisdom," and I believe this applies to most of the deep thinkers of history and the modern world, really is logically consistent and takes these exceptions into account. It's not necessarily complete, no, but it can definitely be consistent (and even well-defined, though it's often expressed symbolically for maximum applicability in a variety of situations, even though this leaves more room for misapplication as well).

Weird thread, OP. I guess you're thinking of St. Augustine: "One can know what God is not; one cannot know what He is."

But if you take this seriously, then comments like...

...are right out. You can't know that 'God' is "personal/relational" any more than Spinoza could know 'God' is Existence Itself.