@AJHenderson It must be nice being male. At least you don't have to worry about the birth part.

I am not sure whether this question would be appropriate here, because the question deals with history more than religion. The question is: how did digital Internet prayer requests get started?

Related: How did prayer requests get started?

Wait a minute. That's just intercessory prayer.

Okay. Never mind. I already know the answer. :P

Hmmm... I wonder if Catholics would actually write a prayer request to a saint.

Perhaps, that's why there is the old writing-to-Santa-Claus tradition?

I think Santa Claus makes sense in a Catholic framework, but does not make sense in a Protestant framework, especially a Protestant denomination that does not have any saints.

Santa Claus. Godmothers. Godfathers. Yuletide. Saints. Saint's Days. All Saint's Day Eve. I can list so many things in Western culture that are intimately connected to Christianity.

Of course, many of that stuff are just cultural now.

@Anonymous The vast majority of those things has a name: idolatry.

What is the site policy on asking "overview" questions... that is "What do any Christian groups teach on X?"

I'm referring specifically to the current state of this question: christianity.stackexchange.com/q/31607/20

and the related conversation in comments here: meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/a/3899/20

@Flimzy I'd like to hear your thoughts on this: alternet.org/belief/why-you-cant-reconcile-god-and-evolution

@Anonymous If a Protestant denomination does not have any saints then they're really doing something wrong

@bruisedreed Interesting. Is the author a Christian?

@Flimzy probably not: Greta Christina is the author of "Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why,"

Ahh

Well, some of his points seem to argue against evolution entirely

with a name like Greta, she's probably a she...

Anyway... my response would be:

Point 1 is setting up a false dichotomy. There are many things which are both natural and miraculous simultaneously. In fact from a Christian standpoint, all of nature fits into that category. And God tends to "prefer" to accomplish his will through mostly natural means anyway, only occasionally intervening in clearly "abnormal" supernatural ways.

#2 "there's not a scrap of evidence for it"... I guess she means there's no evidence that God directed evolution. The examples she gives are completely speculative... how does she know how God would choose to direct evolution? I personally think there are a lot of really big questions that naturalistic evolution cannot resolve, which I think theistic evolution can. her examples are just bad.

3. My response is pretty much the same as #2

I don't think you've actually come to grips with the substance of the critique

#4 This is based on the same false premise as "If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does suffering exist?" And the answer is that suffering (or "brutality" and "messiness" as the author talks about) are the ultimate evil. Which of course Christians don't believe.

What do you think the substance of the critique is?

well I haven't examined it closely all the way to the end, but based on your response to the first three points, it seems you're not thinking through the implications of what she's saying

Firstly the whole point of TOE is to provide a naturalistic explaination of origins it has an a priori assumption that God's intervention or initiation is not required

TOE?

'Theistic Evolution' can never be science in pretty much the same way that YEC can never be science

Theory of Evolution

ah

Well, I disagree with that.

I will grant you that there are some people who treat ToE that way. But TOE is not inherently a search for a godless explanation of origins.

so the starting assumption for TE is opposite to the starting assumtpion of TOE - how can you reconcile them?

The philosophy of godless origins is not science any more than YEC is.

@Flimzy that's exactly what it is

Well, if you're starting with that false assumption, the conversation ends here.

There's no point in continuing without a common understanding of the definition of the theory of evolution.

it's "I have no need of that hypothesis" writ large

can you provide a reputable scientist's (preferably evolutionary paleobiologist/botanist) that has a definition of TOE that is not predicated on entirely naturalistic effects?

No.

Of course not.

But entirely naturalistic != godless

All science is, by very nature, the study of nature

of course & as soon as you bring God in, most scientists will say we are no longer in doing science

Because we aren't.

so for the TOE to be scientific, it must be predicated on the assumption - whatever we do, we don't bring God in to the theory

There's nothing godless about TOE any more than there is anything godless about the discovery of penicillin.

Theistic Evolution does the opposite, so it cannot possibly be scientific

I can agree that it's not scientific.

That's not what the article said, though.

At that point, it's philosophy.

@Flimzy so your "well I disagree with that" was only in respect of degree - it wasn't a complete rejection of my precediing statement?

god vs. godless is a philosophical dimension to the puzzle

TOE doesn't touch on that

So to say that TOE is a search for a godless explanation of origins is to say that TOE includes a philosophical element, which it does not

TOE seeks to find a natural explanation for origins

whether that "nature" is created by god or not cannot be answered by TOE

Further, whether it is directed by God or not cannot be answered by the theory

any more than the theory of gravity can be answered by whether God directs gravity

we can observe that gravity behaves a certain way consistently.

We can even deduce that it's due to weak nuclear forces (or whatever... my sub-atomic physics is weak)

I never agreed to your "entirely naturalistic" != godless btw as for me that is exactly what most scientists mean by it

but none of that can possibly ever say that God isn't the cause of the weak nuclear force, for instance

Well, what "most scientists" mean by it isn't entirely relevant, IMO

let me jump in for a second rather than just staring the points I think are key. The distinction is that it is impossible for science to make any determination of God as you can't test for God

a scientific theory has to be testable

so Theistic Evolution can not be science and Theory of Evolution can not attribute things to God, but it also can't attribute things to having no influence from God

because neither is a testable hypothesis

when you are discussing what is science and what isn't science, then the prevailing view amongst scientists would surely be relevant wouldn't it? Don't they get to define their own terms?

@AJHenderson precisely

@bruisedreed If you press any honest scientist on the matter, they will admit that God is untestable, and that TOE does not preclude the existence of God.

Many have a godless philosophy, which they assume in their TOE studies

But any honest scientist will agree that they can't actually test that

and @bruisedreed - there are plenty of Christian biologists, even evolutionary biologists who do feel (personally) that God was involved with the process, or certainly atleast building the mechanisms that drive it, but that can't be studied scientifically

in fact, many such scientists are therefore technically agnostics

Bill Nye, for instance, is a self-described agnostic

wanting I'm getting at, is that it's intrinsic assumption is that God is not involved in the process - how can you get away from that?

for precisely that reason

@bruisedreed 1. That assumption is anything but intrinsic. It may be common, perhaps even a majority view, but it's not intrinsic. 2. That assumption is irrelevant to the science.

also, I would point out the giant freaking omission that blows away the entire argument that the article presented. She forgets entirely that we live in a dynamic and broken world, therefore we have to be adaptable. The whole point of evolution is to be able to deal with alterations in environment

what is "perfectly designed" now, may be broken in 1000 years

or 10,000 years

Actually AJ she is addressing that point as a counter argument

and having a self balancing system makes a lot of sense

against TE

the argument she's running in point 3 is the evidence of 'bad outcomes/faulty design' is that God is most definitely not directing evolutionary processes

basically she thinks she could do a better job designing, but is short sighted in how she would approach it

this is a significant critique imo

if I'm building a system, I want it to self heal

not have to maintain it constantly

something I have to direct and maintain all the time is bad design

something that works well enough and adapts to the situation is good design

sure you get some quirky ways to deal with issues, but they are ways that worked for some reason or another

@bruisedreed: This following comment is not meant to be derogatory in any way, it's just an observation: It seems to me that much of your education on this matter has likely come from a YEC standpoint. Which I believe spends a lot of time debunking straw men rather than addressing actual arguments made by the opposing side(s).

he he, I'm doing what I didn't want to do lol. I didn't come to argue, just to find out what Flimzy in particular thought about it...

that applies if you believe a non-theistic ToE or a theistically guided form

I <strike>think</strike> am certain this "TOE assumes godlessness" line of reasoning is a straw man

oh darn, <strike> markup doesn't work here. hehe

@Flimzy you would have to construct a rather ingenious argument to justify that statement

@bruisedreed right, I'm pointing out what she wasn't considering that completely demolishes her entire effort in points 3 and 4

The argument is as AJ and I have just explained: TOE doesn't address the question of God at all.

they don't hold up under any level of scrutiny

1 and 2 similarly don't hold up at all if you consider a God that designs systems and only interferes when needed

which is REALLY efficient

she basically proposes that micromanaging every decission in a design is more efficient than building an elegant ruleset that builds the system for you in a working fashion with minimal intervention

which is a stupid argument

which puts her firmly in the the "if God was real, he'd do things my way" camp

without realizing the foolishness of her own approach

@AJHenderson Well put

I could even hypothesize that without the fall, evolution would have continued without the apparent random errors we see now potentially

but when a complex system is knocked out of whack by rogue operations, things are going to get messy in funky ways

@AJHenderson a good point if all the 'bad stuff' could be locked down to a period that post-dates the advent of man - but you're hardly going to get an evolutionary paleobiologist to concede that there were no ancient (pre-homo) mass extinctions etc.

@bruisedreed how about the countless Christians that work on evolutionary research and even more countless Christian biologists who believe ToE. Not that ToE isn't often used as an argument to say that God doesn't have to exist, but that is not a scientific use of the theory, it's a philosophical one.

@bruisedreed mass extinctions aren't necessarily a mess though

@bruisedreed: Read the first question at this page: talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

It does a reasonably good job of explaining why the theory of evolution does not, and cannot, address the question of God.

@bruisedreed why is it inherently a problem if an animal is no longer needed in the ecosystem

To say a mass extinction is or isn't a mess requires definitions.

to assume that an animal shouldn't die off assumes that every animal should always be needed

how do you prove that for the system as a whole to move forward didn't require an animal going away

Mass extinction seems no more inherently messy to me than any other means of animals dying.

(I suppose this is also why the whole topic doesn't really go very far, you really have to know both your science and your religion to really effectively make arguments on this stuff, and there are not a large number of people who really know both fields super well, and most of them look at the whole mess and just shake their heads at both sides)

@AJHenderson I think that is something I can agree with you about

A choice quote from the page I just linked to: No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him

"why is it inherently a problem if an animal is no longer needed in the ecosystem" expendability of a whole species is significantly counter-intuitive of a loving designer who would look with satisfaction over individual portions of his creation viewing them as good (in themselves).

Question 5 is of particular relevance as well

@Flimzy so what?

@bruisedreed No. Expendability of a whole species is only counter-intuitive of specific versions of a loving designer.

And clearly not one I subscribe to.

@Flimzy you know it's ok to hold counter-intuitive propositions don't you? The bible encourages it in fact

@bruisedreed So that pretty concisely disproves the concept that any scientific theory (which are all based on tests), including TOE, can possibly attempt to address the question of God

@bruisedreed Fair enough.

Sup guys! Not talking about anything controversial are we?

oh

...

Nah... we would never...

@bruisedreed I try hard not to end up just rolling my eyes at both sides, but I still internally do it regularly

@bruisedreed: Have you ever read any of Hugh Ross's work?

@AJHenderson I hope you never roll your eyes at ME!

you can only hear the same uninformed arguments from both sides so many times before you start getting really cynical

@Flimzy This will be my last attempt at this (if I can't make it clear with this one, I'm giving up!), ofc TOE (and other scientific theories) do not attempt to address the 'question of God'. But what they seek to do is provide an explanation of phenomena entirely independantly of any God hypothesis. The underlying assumption is a) this is possible & b) success in the project confirms the validity of the implicit assumption (that God is not required for an explanation)y

@AJHenderson Amen

@bruisedreed everything eventually goes away, my steak is good, I still eat it

it is the purpose of steak

and it serves that purpose well, which is good

am I unloving because I enjoy my steak

@AJHenderson You actually just lost me

@bruisedreed I suppose that's accurate in the same way that it's accurate to say there's an implicit assumption that pink leprechauns aren't interfering with the theory of gravity

@Flimzy I believe I read one of Hugh Ross's books nearly 30 years ago now

@LCIII drawing a different parallel to how a loving god can be willing to wipe out a species

that he says are good

@bruisedreed: That is to say, the theory itself, or the scientific method itself, doesn't need an "implicit assumption" about God or about a lack of God. It's so far beyond the realm of consideration, that to mention it at all sounds contrived.

@bruisedreed: I would also argue that "success in the project confirms the validity of the implicit statement that God is not required" is not true

and if things dieing after they serve their purpose is unloving, then evolution isn't necessary to say that any god that created things must be evil, since the process of consuming resources is inherently destructive of other living things

@AJHenderson at a certain level yes - a creature has died for your enjoyment. The highest forms of love would go beyond that

@bruisedreed: That would be true if and only if the hypothesis being tested were dependent upon the existence or non-existence God. And TOE is not.

@bruisedreed if creatures don't die, I die

or is plant life less a creature

@Flimzy wow, I expect that level of mockery from atheists, but hadn't thought you'd stoop to it :(

now if I abuse the cow while I raise it and mistreat it, then yes, I am unloving, but if I care for it, feed it, have compasion for it and make sure that it suffers as little as possible, I am still loving, even if I need it to serve it's ultimate purpose of providing sustinance

@bruisedreed It's not mockery. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

@AJHenderson not necessarily

@AJHenderson sustenance.

@bruisedreed in our current existence we do

@AJHenderson You can actually eat plant products without killing them AJ

@Zoe I'm a developer, if it isn't "if, for, while, else or class" I don't have to know how it's spelled ;)

@bruisedreed Depending on your definition of "creatures," yes, necessarily. The life of a single human depends upon the death of billions of animals daily. Most microscopic, and most living in your intestines.

and why is death unloving?

@AJHenderson many vegetarians would disagree. disclaimer: I am not a vego, and I acknowledge my hypocrisy (or lack of mature love) in this area

if it doesn't involve suffering

@AJHenderson For that matter, why is suffering unloving?

@Flimzy a fair point

@Flimzy I think the word you should use is organism instead of animals.

suffering without cruelty isn't unloving

@Zoe Well, biologically they are known as animals.

most of what makes it "unloving" is our (very warped) perspective on what is and isn't loving

@AJHenderson to end a life for your own selfish purposes when such an act is not necessary? I find it interesting that you think that would not be unloving towards the creature in question.

@Flimzy Animals make me think of cuddly

@Zoe: That's adorable, but not particularly relevant to most biologists :)

@bruisedreed Loving the animal that you want it to become part of you? Does selfishness automatically denote a lack of love?

@bruisedreed the animal is going to die eventually, it will likely suffer far more before it dies compared to a quick death. Why is it assumed that its life is valuable. Particularly if it lacks free will (which I would hypothesize is likely the case)

This conversation has strayed into an area I'm no longer particularly interested in discussion. I think I'll get back to restoring my girlfriend's PC. That's loving.

@Flimzy I accept your apology, but still find it difficult to see it another way. Perhaps you could try responding to the point I took some time to make as clearly as possible in the most respectful and logically clear manner that you can...

Humans work many hypothesises into our own assumptions

@bruisedreed I will make one last effort.

Which specific point should I be responding to?

I always thought that, if the animals we slaughter and eat do not hurt the balance of the fauna and flora, I don't think it's a problem. They do not add nor subtract to the natural numbers... Unless someone let loose all his cows for some reason.

@AJHenderson if it enjoyed it's own existence, and you cut short that enjoyment for your own sake?

@bruisedreed True that. AJ's statement is assuming the animal would suffer if it was not used for our sustenance.

@bruisedreed I'd challenge that if it is capable of enjoyment, then perhaps it also has a spirit that would continue, if it isn't capable of enjoyment, then there is no loss, in either case, I don't believe that the situation is that I am ending the existence of something capable of "enjoying"

@Zoe selfishness is preferring your needs over others, love is preferring others needs over your own. Humans normally discount animals in that equation. I'm no Peter Singer, but there is some merit to giving animals more consideration than we do

either because it continues regardless of physical death or because it doesn't exist in the first place

which admitedly is based almost exclusively on my conceptualization of "spirit"

@bruisedreed I guess there are many types of love and the type of love someone feels may not be in your definition.

people love their pets and have them put down to end their suffering

are they loving or unloving

@Zoe I assume a biblical perspective on love

@AJHenderson They don't buy them to eat them though

@Zoe no, but perhaps the animal wanted to keep existing

@AJHenderson the motive is of course the key - they do that (from their perspective) to benefit their pet

what I'm trying to get at is that much or our conceptualization of "loving" is based on our own pretenses

@AJHenderson exactly!

@AJHenderson Well, assuming that animals do not have freewill, it wouldn't be like it can choose me or relieve from his pain. It would just want relieve from it's pain but not because it chose me.

So, in a way, it is loving for me to give it what it wants.

@Zoe yeah, I wasn't proposing that as a question I'd actually say had a meaningful answer

I don't really understand if an animal wants pain just to stay by my side, willingly.

just as a counterpoint to point out that it is a complex topic

it was not a question intended to promote my view

God told us to eat animals. Shouldn't that be enough justification that it's not "unloving" to do so?

I know.

I'm just not sure how loving or unloving came into the equation of sustenance?

@Zoe Mass extinctions. :)

@Zoe because of questions about if it was loving to eat an animal which came from questions about if it was loving for animals to die after serving their purpose

as explanation of how a loving god could allow a mass extinction

and pointing out that to say that the death of one set of animals is unloving ignores that the death of that set of animals may have enabled more benefit for another larger set of animals

or for an entire system to move forward for which the animals were previously beneficial but are now a hinderance

@Flimzy To that, I hold my view. That if in sustenance, I do not add nor subtract from the natural numbers of the flora and fauna, I'm fine with it. Farming processes that do add or subtract from the natural numbers by large amount, should be judged.

@Flimzy Ah, so that's the point that you start taking the bible more literally is it?

@bruisedreed Now that sounds like mockery.

@AJHenderson We all die after seving our purpose. Esp. missionaries. After the Will of God is done for us, we die.

@Flimzy ah sorry - please forgive me brother

@Zoe it would be better for us to die now and be with God, but we live to serve our purpose here, yes

I don't remember a part in the Bible where God told us to burn large plots of land for farming and sustenance.

It did say for us to rule over the animals. Not sure about mass breeding.

@Zoe God told us to have dominion over the earth :)

@Flimzy in fairness to Zoe's point though, were were also expected to take care of it

@AJHenderson To Biblical Christians yeah. To the non believers, the same question will be asked like the one with the animals and sustenance one.

and the word choice for dominion also implies stewardship

@AJHenderson Of course. :) And I'm no fan of slashing and burning.

Well, if we want to do word play

@Flimzy anyway my response would be, that it is not part of God's perfect plan - it's a consequence of the fall. And a perfect restoration will remove its necessity, until then it stands as a testimony against the dire work of original sin and that truly the creation does groan awaiting the revealing of the sons of God

@bruisedreed Yes because even the lion will eat grass in paradise. No need for meat anymore. We were all supposed to be herbivores anyways!

@bruisedreed Of course, as a YEC, I would expect you to see it that way. :)

I, on the other hand, don't even like the term "God's perfect plan."

I think the phrase desires of the flesh is deep for this topic

As it seems to imply a rigidity that I don't agree with.

Both literally and metaphorically

@Zoe I think mass breeding is fine as long as it can be done in a way that cares for the animals, when it involves being cruel to them or putting them in harsh conditions needlessly, I get worried

@Flimzy you're not a big fan of Romans 12:2? Perhaps just the way its used by people like me :P

Mass breeding almost always denotes harsh conditions. Free range animals are not alot.

@bruisedreed To me there's a big difference between God's "pleasing and perfect will" and what most people mean by "God's perfect plan."

or perhaps what I imagine most people mean by "God's perfect plan."

I hear that phrase, for instance, in the context of not looking for a wife, because "God's perfect plan" involves me sitting around and waiting for him to bring me my soul mate.

@Flimzy I get what you are both saying, personally I think God had a perfect plan for how everything should have unfolded, but disagree strongly with the fear many have that they will make a mistake and end up "off plan"

As is the Lord's Prayer, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, His will being done is the plan?

we are already "off plan"

Or in the context of "My neighbor died in a horrific house fire, but it's part of God's perfect plan to..."

only God can put things back "on plan" and that won't be until after this world is gone

@Flimzy I would argue that is exactly the wrong use of the term

instead for now we have a "pleasing and perfect will" pursuing it to move closer to being "on plan"

or atleast slightly less "off plan"

@Flimzy I don't think there is a difference between His perfect will and His perfect plan. They are one and the same. His will and His plan though, major differences.

The term perfect denotes one.

@AJHenderson I think we are largely in agreement there, but I believe in the Kingdom of God both now and not yet - we can see glimpses of the perfect (matter of fact I had a marvellous one just yesterday :) )

@bruisedreed glimpses, sure

I agree with that

but we are still super far removed from it in terms of the overall state of reality

God has different plans and will for His children so to each He gives the role of Apostles, Prophets etc but His perfect plan is for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, and that will and the doing of that will is one perfect plan.

@AJHenderson yes, otherwise no need for the Lord's prayer

@Zoe I can't agree with the first part of that statement

God has a universal plan and will

I don't think he has specific plans or wills for individuals, they are just part of the larger plan and will

but it's consistent towards one goal and one will

I probably associate "God's perfect plan" with a Calvinist fatalism... and that's why I don't like th eterm

@AJHenderson Treat it as sub points under one main heading/goal.

@Zoe yeah, I mostly just don't like the word choice, because it brings up the wrong impression with some

which is what I'm pretty sure is Flimzy's main issue too

@Flimzy I'm def not a Calvinistic fatalist - so I guess I mean something completely different

partially confirmed by his statement just now about calvanist fatalism

@bruisedreed Just blame my 6-month stint attending a Calvinist bible study group, then... :)

@AJHenderson Sigh, I depend on the Bible. I don't trust any denomination. I think doctrine and teachings that are percieved by men are always faulty at some point. If I'm unsure and the knowledge is needed for me, I ask God. If I am in discussion, I try to discern everything that comes out of the mouth of men.

@Flimzy np, anyways thanks for the chat, time for me to head off

@Zoe I'd remove the almost

:)

@Zoe So do you believe in the trinity?

@Flimzy I believe that the Father, Spirit and Son are three distinct persons with specific and interdependent roles with one nature, God.

@Zoe that's pretty close to my philosophy on it too. I look to scripture and pray for discernment. I additionally look to what I can observe about reality as scripture claims that God is revealed through creation, thus my observations should square with scripture and reality

@Flimzy I don't say yes because I do not know what is the proper definition for Trinity in your perspective.

@Zoe Do you realize that is a "doctrine and teaching that was perceived by men?" It took three and a half centuries for theologians to come up with that.

and then I look at what is presented by others through that lens to consider and discern what I may have overlooked or missed

or not wanted to hear

@Zoe: And a half a century of near civil war in the Roman empire, and thousands killed.

@Flimzy But I'm sure different denominations have a different take on that. And they name it Trinity.

I do however have a trinitarian view, so we do differ there

You could say I am multi denominational? But the only denomination I want to belong to is the kingdom of God denomination if there is such

@Zoe I'd argue that is a superset

I wish I could see more of Biblical Christians in my life. I only know one.

@Zoe My point is depending strictly on the "Bible" you aren't likely to come to that conclusion. So you must also rely/depend/(pick your word) on "doctrine and teachings that are perceived by man"

You know the "Do greater things than these" type.

not an all inclusive superset as I do think there are some denominations that go too far out and go against critical core scripture, but I think that the vast majority of minor differences in theology don't matter in terms of salvation or membership in the Church

@Flimzy I have the NKJV Bible, there is one verse I think that is close to the Trinitarian view

@Zoe: The concept of God being three persons in a single essence is not plainly in the bible... it took the world's greatest thinkers 350 years and tons of bloodshed to come up with it. So the idea that any modern Christian would come up with that entirely by reading the Bible, with no outside influence (or "teachings perceived by man") is pretty far-fetched.

@Zoe: The KJV is heavily influenced by "teachings perceived by man".

@Flimzy Well it's the only version that I have so

and I only know english

That's why ask God