Praying for you

[nigel99 143]

As I get older and grumpier it really pisses me off when people think that an appropriate response to someone reaching out for help is to ‘pray for them’

The latest incident was someone I know posting on Facebook about some friends of theirs in South Africa who are now homeless and struggling to get food etc (no welfare system as a safety net). Send $5 fine, but posting ‘I’ll be praying for them’ is frankly a cop out to make you feel good about yourself and absolve your guilt. 

[turtlespeed 212]

25 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

As I get older and grumpier it really pisses me off when people think that an appropriate response to someone reaching out for help is to ‘pray for them’

The latest incident was someone I know posting on Facebook about some friends of theirs in South Africa who are now homeless and struggling to get food etc (no welfare system as a safety net). Send $5 fine, but posting ‘I’ll be praying for them’ is frankly a cop out to make you feel good about yourself and absolve your guilt. 

Or, it might be the most important thing to them that they CAN do.

They are willing to commit to asking the most powerful being in their minds to help the people.

It's a gesture of the highest caliber, if its sincere. (I have seen many times where its just words)

 

It's really just how you choose to look at it.

 

[Coreece 189]

42 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

As I get older and grumpier it really pisses me off when people think that an appropriate response to someone reaching out for help is to ‘pray for them’

I'm guessing you're more like the "sending vibes" type?

[nigel99 143]

Just now, Coreece said:

I'm guessing you're more like the "sending vibes" type?

Vibes don’t feed you...

Im the euthanasia type

I follow the bible ‘if you don’t work you don’t eat’

[Coreece 189]

Just now, nigel99 said:

I follow the bible ‘if you don’t work you don’t eat’

I think it's if you refuse to work. 

You seem to keep missing these little details.  You did that last time with Proverbs.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

As I get older and grumpier it really pisses me off when people think that an appropriate response to someone reaching out for help is to ‘pray for them’

The latest incident was someone I know posting on Facebook about some friends of theirs in South Africa who are now homeless and struggling to get food etc (no welfare system as a safety net). Send $5 fine, but posting ‘I’ll be praying for them’ is frankly a cop out to make you feel good about yourself and absolve your guilt. 

When I hear that phrase I think of it as casual, pro forma, and most likely untrue. It’s just the cynic in me.

[nigel99 143]

28 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I think it's if you refuse to work. 

You seem to keep missing these little details.  You did that last time with Proverbs.

Haha, how righteous of you. Every single Christian I have ever met cherry picks and manipulates the bible to fit their agenda. Proverbs = good, but no ignore the Old Testament because Jesus changed all that, so no don’t go stoning homosexuals to death cause that isn’t ‘my god’.

I was being sarcastic with the comment anyway. In reality I feel sorry for those people who get dealt a shit hand in life. That said it doesn’t mean I ‘do’ anything for people outside my extended family. 

I was really impressed with a story I saw a week or two ago about a Soccer player in the UK who earns over $10Million a year and distributes it to many people in Senegal where he comes from, he’s got a shitty old phone and keeps enough for himself to live. It only came out, not cause he was bragging but because a journalist asked why he had an old cracked phone...

[turtlespeed 212]

I found this humorous.

God is perfect, right?

BUT - Jesus is the basis of the new testament. 

So somewhere, somehow, Mr. Perfect realized that he had to change the error of his ways.

 

[nigel99 143]

Just now, gowlerk said:

When I hear that phrase I think of it as casual, pro forma, and most likely untrue. It’s just the cynic in me.

Exactly it’s to usually to assuage their guilt for doing nothing, it is a selfish act intended for themselves, in exactly the same way as the ‘sending good vibes’ crowd do.

For all my parents faults (they are religious nuts) they opened our home to many destitute people over the years and tried to provide the opportunity for them to find their feet in life. Sadly the number of druggies that were released from prison and stayed with us a few weeks before robbing us and moving on was about a 100% success rate

[billvon 2,380]

29 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I found this humorous.

God is perfect, right?

BUT - Jesus is the basis of the new testament. 

Well, except Jesus also said that you can't change the old laws even one bit.  But it's OK to change them because reasons.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

I follow the bible ‘if you don’t work you don’t eat’

 

29 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I think it's if you refuse to work. 

You seem to keep missing these little details.  You did that last time with Proverbs.

Haha, how righteous of you. Every single Christian I have ever met cherry picks and manipulates the bible to fit their agenda.

No cherry picking/manipulation needed - that's on you. The verse is clearly talking about those who are unwilling/refuse to work.

 

[nigel99 143]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, except Jesus also said that you can't change the old laws even one bit.  But it's OK to change them because reasons.

Some humour...

https://youtu.be/U6-zi25GgVE

[nigel99 143]

13 minutes ago, Coreece said:

 

No cherry picking/manipulation needed - that's on you. The verse is clearly talking about those who are unwilling/refuse to work.

 

Ok so here’s one for you, verbatim and from the New Testament, so post the Jesus changed all the rules. 
 

1 Corinthians 11:6

For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

Does that apply and if not why?

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, nigel99 said:

Ok so here’s one for you, verbatim and from the New Testament, so post the Jesus changed all the rules. 
 

1 Corinthians 11:6

For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

Does that apply and if not why?

Not sure what that has to do with the OP and what we were actually talking about, but I never really looked into the context, so i don't have an answer off the top of my head.  Maybe you could tell me?  If you're willing to show a bit of good faith effort and do a little research of your own, I'd be happy to take a look into it and point out where you're wrong.

For starters you'll probably want to find out what prompted Paul to address this issue in the first place.  Then you'll want to delve into the historical, cultural and circumstantial context of this specific Church in Corinth, and then compare it with other churches/customs in other regions whether started by Paul or not.

Then after coming to your own conclusion, take a look at some commentaries and what other scholars are saying about it. (both religious and secular scholars)

 

I mean that's how I would do it.  I know you people are into critical thinking and all that jazz, so it shouldn't be that hard for you, right?

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

people are into critical thinking and all that jazz,

People who are into critical thinking do not debate the meaning of ancient fables. They just accept them for what they are. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Coreece 189]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

People who are into critical thinking do not debate the meaning of ancient fables.

The specific text in question is not considered an ancient fable, not even by secular scholars.  If you were thinking critically, you'd know that.

[nigel99 143]

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

Not sure what that has to do with the OP and what we were actually talking about, but I never really looked into the context, so i don't have an answer off the top of my head.  Maybe you could tell me?  If you're willing to show a bit of good faith effort and do a little research of your own, I'd be happy to take a look into it and point out where you're wrong.

For starters you'll probably want to find out what prompted Paul to address this issue in the first place.  Then you'll want to delve into the historical, cultural and circumstantial context of this specific Church in Corinth, and then compare it with other churches/customs in other regions whether started by Paul or not.

Then after coming to your own conclusion, take a look at some commentaries and what other scholars are saying about it. (both religious and secular scholars)

 

I mean that's how I would do it.  I know you people are into critical thinking and all that jazz, so it shouldn't be that hard for you, right?

Honestly just having a bit of fun. When I was about 15 or 16 I had long hair. The pastor and his wife sat down with me and proceeded to lecture me from that passage that a man should not have long hair (it’s an adjacent verse), while she sat there with hair down to her waist and uncovered. They didn’t take kindly to me pointing that out, you know context and all that... In hindsight I should have asked them to pray for god to cut my hair for me

Edited March 8, 2020 by nigel99

[gowlerk 1,903]

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by gowlerk

[nigel99 143]

Let’s look at the facts, Trumps opponent is likely to be Creepy Joe who is known to have a problem with smelling women’s hair. So Paul is clearly warning American women to cover their hair or shave it, because if they don’t then there will be horrible stories about Creepy Joe. Sneaky Bastard that Paul, bloody towel head interfering with US elections from way back then!

[Coreece 189]

52 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

The specific text in question is not considered an ancient fable, not even by secular scholars.  If you were thinking critically, you'd know that.

It is not a contemporaneously created account. Like all of the New Testament it was spun from whole cloth years after the deaths of the supposed participants.

While the painstaking task of scribal transmission of NT writings wasn't as meticulous as that of the OT, the general consensus among both secular and non-secular scholars is that the manuscripts for most of the Pauline epistles are authentic and reliable transmissions of mid 1st century letters written by Paul.

They are comparing multiple manuscripts of the same writings from different regions with all the other tools available to modern day scientists/scholars to draw these conclusions.   What's your level of expertise in paleography and textual criticism?

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

What's your level of expertise in paleography and textual criticism?

None. I understand that people who believe think that Paul, who “met” Christ after his death when he appeared as a “ghost”, or spirit, feel that his writings are a revealed truth. But to the rest of humanity it is seen as a “scholarly endeavour” much the same as astrology is.

[Coreece 189]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

What's your level of expertise in paleography and textual criticism?

None. I understand that people who believe think that Paul, who “met” Christ after his death when he appeared as a “ghost”, or spirit, feel that his writings are a revealed truth.

Fine, but that's not what we're talking about.  Nigel did this earlier.  You guys start talking about one thing, and then when I pin you down, you just try to slime your way out onto another topic or idea.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Coreece

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

Fine, but that's not what we're talking about.  Nigel did this earlier.  You guys start talking about one thing, and then when I pin you down, you just slime away onto another topic or idea.

Ok, but I already stated my feeling about the sincerity of nominal Christians and their prayers. I will admit that I feel a little guilty about my level of cynicism because I am also fairly certain that at least a few of them are sincere.

[gowlerk 1,903]

5 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Fine, but that's not what we're talking about.  Nigel did this earlier.  You guys start talking about one thing, and then when I pin you down, you just slime away onto another topic or idea.

Hmmm..... also, what seems like sliming away to you feels like the thread drifting off in a new direction to me. I guess you were talking about the work ethic thing, but I wasn’t really participating in that part of the drift. To me the thread subject is prayer.

[Coreece 189]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

14 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Fine, but that's not what we're talking about.  Nigel did this earlier.  You guys start talking about one thing, and then when I pin you down, you just slime away onto another topic or idea.

Hmmm..... also, what seems like sliming away to you feels like the thread drifting off in a new direction to me.

Thread drift is fine, but if you don't acknowledge or just ignore a sincere response just because you don't like the direction it's going and demonstrates how you were wrong, then you're just moving the goal posts, changing the subject and being evasive in an attempt at misdirection.