Do you believe God intervenes & answers prayers?

[_guy sajer]

guy: OK, let’s pray to regenerate the foreskin of a circumcised penis. I’m all for that. Ok, how about a severed finger that grows back. Let’s ask God to do that.

Any guesses as to what the likely outcome will be?

Jersey Girl: One can only hope that the "poor men" would be "healed".

guy: I reject the accusation of appeal to emotion. The example of the child is given so that none could make any counterclaim of “non-worthiness” on the part of the sufferer. Children are innocent such that there is no reason that God would not heal the child were he to keep his word and answer the prayers of the faithful. (Unless one wants to argue that God failed to heal the child due to the faithless or sin of the invoker, another convenient “out” when God fails to answer prayers.)

Jersey Girl: You are free to reject the accusation of appeal to emotion however, it was you who used the phrase "poor child" to describe children with Spina Bifida, Cleft Palate, clubbed foot or missing arm. If that isn't an appeal to emotion I don't know what is. Now you are attempting to use LDS theology as a vehicle for your argument. What has "innocence" or "worthiness" got to do with Gods ability to answer prayer? Do you assume that God is required to answer prayer in the affirmative?

Guy: I’d call any child born with spina bifida a poor child. OK, however, let’s get rid of the adjective “poor,” now imagined appeal to emotion aside, what have you to say now?

guy: Why not test God? He said he’d answer our prayers, why then is he to hold back only because we take him at his word? (Note that in other places, eg.., Malachi, God explicitly dares us to put him to the test, so he’s apparently not above being tested a bit.)

Jersey Girl: Where does god "dare" us to put him to the test? Again, you are using emotion laden language. But humor me, where does God "dare" us to put him to the test? Could you give me a reference and quote?

Guy: It’s a common missionary scripture about tithing, it goes something like “and prove me now herewith, sayeth the Lord, that I will not pour out blessings upon you in abudance, etc. if we pay tithing. I don’t feel like looking it up, but any number of other posters can back me on this. I cited it ad nauseum on my mission.

guy: I promise, cross my heart. If I saw a limb grown back, I’d believe.

Jersey Girl: Here you are placing conditions on God in that you have to see a limb grow back.

Guy: Why can’t I place conditions on God? Who says I can’t? You? God promises he will hear and answer prayers. If we pray to grow a limb back, he doesn’t give this as an exception.

guy: Well, let’s see. All powerful means . . . well, all powerful. God can raise the dead, God can create matter, God can create life, God can cause natural disasters, why the by golly can’t he regrow a limb?

Jersey Girl: Who says that God can cause natural disasters? Which believers are you speaking for?

Guy: Read 3 Nephi where Jesus brags about all the people he killed via fire, earthquakes, floods. Oh yeah, the little thing about a global flood that killed everyone. That qualifies as a natural disaster.

guy: The point is that miracles happen at a rate approximately equal to what one would expect from pure random chance. Cancer goes away at times by pure random chance. Limbs don’t grow back by pure random chance, making the latter a better test of prayer, because it completely takes chance out of the picture.

Jersey Girl: Unless you are able to provide statistical analysis of all miracles, I can't accept your assertion about rates of miracles: random chance. Cancer appears to go away with treatment in some and some not. What is the relevance of that? I've given you a link to a story about researchers who are working at restoring severed body parts. Does that meet your so called test? The case of the missing limbs does in no way take "chance" out of the picture. It assumes that God must subject himself to the test of human beings and that his answer to prayer must be in the affirmative.

Guy: If you don’t get it now, I don’t feel like explaining it anymore. Read the website, it addresses these questions.

Using medicine to grow back severed body parts is different from God miraculously regenerated limbs or severed body parts. One is an act of man, the other of God. The one based in science; the other a miracle.

guy: C’mon NJG, this isn’t that hard to grasp.

Jersey Girl: Are you implying that I lack intelligence?

Guy: No, I’m sorry if I imply this. More frustration in my ability to explain this or you difficulty in understanding. I have a hard time often grasping what other people think is easy, so no offense intended, and the comment is duly withdrawn.

guy: All of your questions are answered at the following website if you care to read it:

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god8.htm

Jersey Girl: I couldn't have asked for a better example of the appeal to emotion than what you've delivered in the link. God "hates" amputees. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Guy: It’s not appeal to emotion. It’s sarcasm. Big difference.

[_Jersey Girl]

guy,

I briefly scanned the material in the link you gave me. Interesting. The title of the piece is "Why won't God heal amputees" and goes on to provide material intended to converge on the concept that God is an illusion. The link to the page is entitled "Whydoesgodhateamputees". Please don't tell me that this isn't any less an appeal to emotion than skeptics think religion is.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

guy: OK, let’s pray to regenerate the foreskin of a circumcised penis. I’m all for that. Ok, how about a severed finger that grows back. Let’s ask God to do that.

Any guesses as to what the likely outcome will be?

Jersey Girl: One can only hope that the "poor men" would be "healed".

guy: I reject the accusation of appeal to emotion. The example of the child is given so that none could make any counterclaim of “non-worthiness” on the part of the sufferer. Children are innocent such that there is no reason that God would not heal the child were he to keep his word and answer the prayers of the faithful. (Unless one wants to argue that God failed to heal the child due to the faithless or sin of the invoker, another convenient “out” when God fails to answer prayers.)

Jersey Girl: You are free to reject the accusation of appeal to emotion however, it was you who used the phrase "poor child" to describe children with Spina Bifida, Cleft Palate, clubbed foot or missing arm. If that isn't an appeal to emotion I don't know what is. Now you are attempting to use LDS theology as a vehicle for your argument. What has "innocence" or "worthiness" got to do with Gods ability to answer prayer? Do you assume that God is required to answer prayer in the affirmative?

Guy: I’d call any child born with spina bifida a poor child. OK, however, let’s get rid of the adjective “poor,” now imagined appeal to emotion aside, what have you to say now?

guy: Why not test God? He said he’d answer our prayers, why then is he to hold back only because we take him at his word? (Note that in other places, eg.., Malachi, God explicitly dares us to put him to the test, so he’s apparently not above being tested a bit.)

Jersey Girl: Where does god "dare" us to put him to the test? Again, you are using emotion laden language. But humor me, where does God "dare" us to put him to the test? Could you give me a reference and quote?

Guy: It’s a common missionary scripture about tithing, it goes something like “and prove me now herewith, sayeth the Lord, that I will not pour out blessings upon you in abudance, etc. if we pay tithing. I don’t feel like looking it up, but any number of other posters can back me on this. I cited it ad nauseum on my mission.

guy: I promise, cross my heart. If I saw a limb grown back, I’d believe.

Jersey Girl: Here you are placing conditions on God in that you have to see a limb grow back.

Guy: Why can’t I place conditions on God? Who says I can’t? You? God promises he will hear and answer prayers. If we pray to grow a limb back, he doesn’t give this as an exception.

guy: Well, let’s see. All powerful means . . . well, all powerful. God can raise the dead, God can create matter, God can create life, God can cause natural disasters, why the by golly can’t he regrow a limb?

Jersey Girl: Who says that God can cause natural disasters? Which believers are you speaking for?

Guy: Read 3 Nephi where Jesus brags about all the people he killed via fire, earthquakes, floods. Oh yeah, the little thing about a global flood that killed everyone. That qualifies as a natural disaster.

guy: The point is that miracles happen at a rate approximately equal to what one would expect from pure random chance. Cancer goes away at times by pure random chance. Limbs don’t grow back by pure random chance, making the latter a better test of prayer, because it completely takes chance out of the picture.

Jersey Girl: Unless you are able to provide statistical analysis of all miracles, I can't accept your assertion about rates of miracles: random chance. Cancer appears to go away with treatment in some and some not. What is the relevance of that? I've given you a link to a story about researchers who are working at restoring severed body parts. Does that meet your so called test? The case of the missing limbs does in no way take "chance" out of the picture. It assumes that God must subject himself to the test of human beings and that his answer to prayer must be in the affirmative.

Guy: If you don’t get it now, I don’t feel like explaining it anymore. Read the website, it addresses these questions.

Using medicine to grow back severed body parts is different from God miraculously regenerated limbs or severed body parts. One is an act of man, the other of God. The one based in science; the other a miracle.

guy: C’mon NJG, this isn’t that hard to grasp.

Jersey Girl: Are you implying that I lack intelligence?

Guy: No, I’m sorry if I imply this. More frustration in my ability to explain this or you difficulty in understanding. I have a hard time often grasping what other people think is easy, so no offense intended, and the comment is duly withdrawn.

guy: All of your questions are answered at the following website if you care to read it:

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god8.htm

Jersey Girl: I couldn't have asked for a better example of the appeal to emotion than what you've delivered in the link. God "hates" amputees. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Guy: It’s not appeal to emotion. It’s sarcasm. Big difference.

guy,

I took time to reply to every point you brought up. I'd like you to reply to my comments with something more than a thoughtless hit and run.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

guy,

My apologies. I see that you replied within the quoted text.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

I'll give this a brief shot...it's late.

guy: OK, let’s pray to regenerate the foreskin of a circumcised penis. I’m all for that. Ok, how about a severed finger that grows back. Let’s ask God to do that.

Any guesses as to what the likely outcome will be?

Jersey Girl: One can only hope that the "poor men" would be "healed".

guy: I reject the accusation of appeal to emotion. The example of the child is given so that none could make any counterclaim of “non-worthiness” on the part of the sufferer. Children are innocent such that there is no reason that God would not heal the child were he to keep his word and answer the prayers of the faithful. (Unless one wants to argue that God failed to heal the child due to the faithless or sin of the invoker, another convenient “out” when God fails to answer prayers.)

Jersey Girl: You are free to reject the accusation of appeal to emotion however, it was you who used the phrase "poor child" to describe children with Spina Bifida, Cleft Palate, clubbed foot or missing arm. If that isn't an appeal to emotion I don't know what is. Now you are attempting to use LDS theology as a vehicle for your argument. What has "innocence" or "worthiness" got to do with Gods ability to answer prayer? Do you assume that God is required to answer prayer in the affirmative?

Guy: I’d call any child born with spina bifida a poor child. OK, however, let’s get rid of the adjective “poor,” now imagined appeal to emotion aside, what have you to say now?

Jersey Girl: I'd say that the children I've worked with who have Spina Bifida are joyful and their parents would wholly reject your characterizing them as "poor". I find my interaction and experiences with children who have birth defects far less disturbing than my interaction and experiences with adults who lack character.

guy: Why not test God? He said he’d answer our prayers, why then is he to hold back only because we take him at his word? (Note that in other places, eg.., Malachi, God explicitly dares us to put him to the test, so he’s apparently not above being tested a bit.)

Jersey Girl: Where does god "dare" us to put him to the test? Again, you are using emotion laden language. But humor me, where does God "dare" us to put him to the test? Could you give me a reference and quote?

Guy: It’s a common missionary scripture about tithing, it goes something like “and prove me now herewith, sayeth the Lord, that I will not pour out blessings upon you in abudance, etc. if we pay tithing. I don’t feel like looking it up, but any number of other posters can back me on this. I cited it ad nauseum on my mission.

Jersey Girl: This holds no meaning to me whatsoever.

guy: I promise, cross my heart. If I saw a limb grown back, I’d believe.

Jersey Girl: Here you are placing conditions on God in that you have to see a limb grow back.

Guy: Why can’t I place conditions on God? Who says I can’t? You? God promises he will hear and answer prayers. If we pray to grow a limb back, he doesn’t give this as an exception.

Jersey Girl: You assume that God must answer in the affirmative. As if prayer is a begging contest between man and God, the only acceptable outcome that of a "yes" to the begging.

guy: Well, let’s see. All powerful means . . . well, all powerful. God can raise the dead, God can create matter, God can create life, God can cause natural disasters, why the by golly can’t he regrow a limb?

Jersey Girl: Who says that God can cause natural disasters? Which believers are you speaking for?

Guy: Read 3 Nephi where Jesus brags about all the people he killed via fire, earthquakes, floods. Oh yeah, the little thing about a global flood that killed everyone. That qualifies as a natural disaster.

Jersey Girl: I'm not LDS.

guy: The point is that miracles happen at a rate approximately equal to what one would expect from pure random chance. Cancer goes away at times by pure random chance. Limbs don’t grow back by pure random chance, making the latter a better test of prayer, because it completely takes chance out of the picture.

Jersey Girl: Unless you are able to provide statistical analysis of all miracles, I can't accept your assertion about rates of miracles: random chance. Cancer appears to go away with treatment in some and some not. What is the relevance of that? I've given you a link to a story about researchers who are working at restoring severed body parts. Does that meet your so called test? The case of the missing limbs does in no way take "chance" out of the picture. It assumes that God must subject himself to the test of human beings and that his answer to prayer must be in the affirmative.

Guy: If you don’t get it now, I don’t feel like explaining it anymore. Read the website, it addresses these questions.

Jersey Girl: I'm afraid that after years of engaging and being engaged by skeptics, I get it all too well.

Using medicine to grow back severed body parts is different from God miraculously regenerated limbs or severed body parts. One is an act of man, the other of God. The one based in science; the other a miracle.

Jersey Girl: Nope. You used cancer as an example. Cancer treatment is an act of man. The outcome could be considered an act of God. You don't think that science is a miracle?

guy: C’mon NJG, this isn’t that hard to grasp.

Jersey Girl: Are you implying that I lack intelligence?

Guy: No, I’m sorry if I imply this. More frustration in my ability to explain this or you difficulty in understanding. I have a hard time often grasping what other people think is easy, so no offense intended, and the comment is duly withdrawn.

Jersey Girl: I understand exactly what you're trying to say to me.

guy: All of your questions are answered at the following website if you care to read it:

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god8.htm

Jersey Girl: I couldn't have asked for a better example of the appeal to emotion than what you've delivered in the link. God "hates" amputees. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

[_asbestosman]

Jersey Girl: Where does god "dare" us to put him to the test? Again, you are using emotion laden language. But humor me, where does God "dare" us to put him to the test? Could you give me a reference and quote?

Guy: It’s a common missionary scripture about tithing, it goes something like “and prove me now herewith, sayeth the Lord, that I will not pour out blessings upon you in abudance, etc. if we pay tithing. I don’t feel like looking it up, but any number of other posters can back me on this. I cited it ad nauseum on my mission.

Malachi 3:10.

But the scriptures also saith, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matt. 4:7 and Deut. 6:16).

[_Roger Morrison]

Excuse me, interesting diologue. Jersey Girl, said:

Does God provide the treatment or does God provide the ability to develop treatment by human beings? Does God magically put out the forest fire or does God provide man with the ability to develop the hose and hydrant?

Good questions. Seems to put more mortal capability in the hands of humans than in "God"?? Sort-of, "God" starts the fires by lightning(?), then humans put them out by water. Hmn? Where da water come from... H2O?

Maybe that's the way it's supposed to work??? "God" creates havoc, humans do the repair. Result: Humans gain confidence, "God" loses credibility. Humans become self reliant.

"God" says, "finally, they're able to take care of themselves! Now all i have to do is keep the globes in orbit around the sun... Kolob..."

AsbestosMan, there are always those who bring up the rear in every realm. You don't seem like one of them or you wouldn't be keyboarding here communicating, as you "know" how to do.

The child bearing testimony "knows" only relative to their age... I think time will come when such terminology will be discouraged, or lose its trendiness, as intelligence and reality displace emotion and cuttsie... One can 'appreciate' with out 'knowing' a lot. Might be more appropriate??? Warm regards, Roger

[_Mephitus]

This reminds me of a saying, "does knowing how a rainbow works make it any less beautifull?"

There are things in this world that are nothing more than statistical chance or scientific end result of the variables. When something good happens to a logical person, they are happy of the circumstances working towards their favor. When a religious person has something good happen to them, they blame the invisible man in the sky. Its a thought terminating methodology of thought. It removes any reason to examine the situation and understand why it worked out. I say figure it out, learn from circumstances and then likewise apply them to make us all better. Take responsibility for things and stop blaming your imaginary friend in the sky for all things good and bad.

[_guy sajer]

guy: OK, let’s pray to regenerate the foreskin of a circumcised penis. I’m all for that. Ok, how about a severed finger that grows back. Let’s ask God to do that.

Any guesses as to what the likely outcome will be?

Jersey Girl: One can only hope that the "poor men" would be "healed".

guy: I reject the accusation of appeal to emotion. The example of the child is given so that none could make any counterclaim of “non-worthiness” on the part of the sufferer. Children are innocent such that there is no reason that God would not heal the child were he to keep his word and answer the prayers of the faithful. (Unless one wants to argue that God failed to heal the child due to the faithless or sin of the invoker, another convenient “out” when God fails to answer prayers.)

Jersey Girl: You are free to reject the accusation of appeal to emotion however, it was you who used the phrase "poor child" to describe children with Spina Bifida, Cleft Palate, clubbed foot or missing arm. If that isn't an appeal to emotion I don't know what is. Now you are attempting to use LDS theology as a vehicle for your argument. What has "innocence" or "worthiness" got to do with Gods ability to answer prayer? Do you assume that God is required to answer prayer in the affirmative?

Guy: I’d call any child born with spina bifida a poor child. OK, however, let’s get rid of the adjective “poor,” now imagined appeal to emotion aside, what have you to say now?

guy: Why not test God? He said he’d answer our prayers, why then is he to hold back only because we take him at his word? (Note that in other places, eg.., Malachi, God explicitly dares us to put him to the test, so he’s apparently not above being tested a bit.)

Jersey Girl: Where does god "dare" us to put him to the test? Again, you are using emotion laden language. But humor me, where does God "dare" us to put him to the test? Could you give me a reference and quote?

Guy: It’s a common missionary scripture about tithing, it goes something like “and prove me now herewith, sayeth the Lord, that I will not pour out blessings upon you in abudance, etc. if we pay tithing. I don’t feel like looking it up, but any number of other posters can back me on this. I cited it ad nauseum on my mission.

guy: I promise, cross my heart. If I saw a limb grown back, I’d believe.

Jersey Girl: Here you are placing conditions on God in that you have to see a limb grow back.

Guy: Why can’t I place conditions on God? Who says I can’t? You? God promises he will hear and answer prayers. If we pray to grow a limb back, he doesn’t give this as an exception.

guy: Well, let’s see. All powerful means . . . well, all powerful. God can raise the dead, God can create matter, God can create life, God can cause natural disasters, why the by golly can’t he regrow a limb?

Jersey Girl: Who says that God can cause natural disasters? Which believers are you speaking for?

Guy: Read 3 Nephi where Jesus brags about all the people he killed via fire, earthquakes, floods. Oh yeah, the little thing about a global flood that killed everyone. That qualifies as a natural disaster.

guy: The point is that miracles happen at a rate approximately equal to what one would expect from pure random chance. Cancer goes away at times by pure random chance. Limbs don’t grow back by pure random chance, making the latter a better test of prayer, because it completely takes chance out of the picture.

Jersey Girl: Unless you are able to provide statistical analysis of all miracles, I can't accept your assertion about rates of miracles: random chance. Cancer appears to go away with treatment in some and some not. What is the relevance of that? I've given you a link to a story about researchers who are working at restoring severed body parts. Does that meet your so called test? The case of the missing limbs does in no way take "chance" out of the picture. It assumes that God must subject himself to the test of human beings and that his answer to prayer must be in the affirmative.

Guy: If you don’t get it now, I don’t feel like explaining it anymore. Read the website, it addresses these questions.

Using medicine to grow back severed body parts is different from God miraculously regenerated limbs or severed body parts. One is an act of man, the other of God. The one based in science; the other a miracle.

guy: C’mon NJG, this isn’t that hard to grasp.

Jersey Girl: Are you implying that I lack intelligence?

Guy: No, I’m sorry if I imply this. More frustration in my ability to explain this or you difficulty in understanding. I have a hard time often grasping what other people think is easy, so no offense intended, and the comment is duly withdrawn.

guy: All of your questions are answered at the following website if you care to read it:

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god8.htm

Jersey Girl: I couldn't have asked for a better example of the appeal to emotion than what you've delivered in the link. God "hates" amputees. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Guy: It’s not appeal to emotion. It’s sarcasm. Big difference.

guy,

I took time to reply to every point you brought up. I'd like you to reply to my comments with something more than a thoughtless hit and run.

Jersey Girl

I disagree it's appeal to emotion. It's sarcasm, but I'm not going to convince you, so let's agree to disagree.

One person's "hit and run" reply is another person's "I'm tired, I have lots to do, I don't have time to write out a lengthy post anymore" reply.

Again, I think if you read over the website, it'll address, if not satisfactorily answer your questions. I am not disrespecting you; I just have other things to do at the moment.

[_asbestosman]

AsbestosMan, there are always those who bring up the rear in every realm. You don't seem like one of them or you wouldn't be keyboarding here communicating, as you "know" how to do.

The child bearing testimony "knows" only relative to their age... I think time will come when such terminology will be discouraged, or lose its trendiness, as intelligence and reality displace emotion and cuttsie... One can 'appreciate' with out 'knowing' a lot. Might be more appropriate??? Warm regards, Roger

I'm not sure what yo mean about "bringing up the rear" so I can't speak to that, but I doubt that "know" will lose its trendiness. See Alma 30:39. Yes, I recognize that the next verse speaks against the burden of proof and I think that one is indeed becoming less trendy thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In fact, I think Alma 30:39 brings up a very important point. While I may not know in a certain sense, I actually do believe that there are many who do know through various means. Some of this knowledge likely comes through experiences that are too personal to share. In fact I susepct that knowledge has been and still is communicated from God to people through prayer in such a way that said knowledge could not be explained away by guessing or from an inner-generated experience. However, I also think that the nature of God is such that this could never be scientifically demonstrated to anyone other than the one who experienced it. I am still thinking about details on this argument, but if one decrees by fiat that reality must be demonstrable to all outside observers, then I will have to throw up my arms and leave such a person to their dogmatism.