Final Thoughts on the Atheist Prayer Experiment

I completed the Atheist Prayer Experiment, 40 days of prayer that ended October 26. Roughly 70 atheists prayed for several minutes daily in a nonspecific way. This was basically a “Hello, anyone there?” to the spiritual world.

I blogged about that experience here, here, here, and here. “Unbelievable,” the radio show and podcast that hosted the project, discussed the results with Tim Mawson, the philosopher whose paper formed its foundation, in two parts (part 1 and part 2). I was interviewed for part 2.

I’d like to touch on some ideas that came out of the experiment.

First, the big question: did I find God(s)? No, I did not. But you can tell me if God tried to speak to me.

I’ve already mentioned a couple of interesting coincidences during the experiment, but I should report on something interesting that happened the day after the experiment was over. I was vacationing in Hawaii, and I stepped outside our rented condo. I noticed a leaf driven by upcurrents, and I caught it in midair. It was a clump of bougainvillea, three white petals stuck together.

Remember Francis Collins’ conversion story, where he turned a corner on a winter hike and saw a waterfall frozen into three columns? That suggestion of the Trinity was enough to convince him that God was speaking to him. And here, with the Prayer Experiment just completed, the wind (or perhaps the Holy Spirit?) pushes into my hands three petals in a clump. Three, yet one. (And guess what floor our condo was on.)

As you can imagine, this initially struck me as barely noteworthy. With some work, I was able to make it into a curious coincidence, but I see nothing supernatural about it.

Here’s part two: that afternoon, there was a magnitude 7.7 earthquake in the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia that caused a tsunami that hit Hawaii about five hours later. We evacuated, though the tsunami turned out to be insignificant.

Some might say that God’s Hand calmed the seas. I say that it was an interesting adventure with a satisfactory natural explanation.

My conclusion: I’m glad I did the experiment so I can show that I’ve been open to the possibility of the supernatural, but it has only provided more evidence that it doesn’t exist.

(Maybe I wasn’t doing the prayers right? If every field has an associated particle—the famous Higgs boson is a consequence of the Higgs field, for example—perhaps prayers are conveyed by prayons, and I wasn’t capturing them properly. The photo above shows one view on how to improve the signal strength of prayer.)

A more substantive criticism of the experiment’s deist approach came from a commenter.

The “anonymous deity” profile you have in mind, which sort of uses comparative religion to abstract away all distinctives, seems to me scarcely even to allow for Zeus, but to allow for Zeus far better than YHWH. It seems like an exercise in averaging together the phone numbers of a lot of celebrities, coming up with the number 555-5555, and calling that. I don’t suppose anyone has that number, so I don’t suppose anyone will “answer.”

I come back to the simple, naïve, obvious question: why is the existence of God not obvious? Said from the other direction, why is the clear and plain absence of God insufficient evidence to show that he doesn’t exist? When you pray to a guy who desperately wants to have a relationship with you but get no reply, what can we conclude from that?

C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters explains it this way:

The Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of [God’s] scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.

Sorry, Lewis fans, but that’s utter crap.

I meet new people all the time. Their forcing their existence on me is no imposition on my free will. Why pretend that it would be different for God? This is simply a clumsy argument to support Christian presuppositions. I almost feel embarrassed hearing some of these rationalizations, like watching someone in a play who’s forgotten his lines.

One suggestion that I received during the experiment was to just walk the walk. Act like a Christian for a while and you’ll slowly believe. Yes, I suppose that might work. I could suppress Reason and act more on Faith … but why should I do that? Why do that any more than you’d walk the walk of a Mormon or a Hari Krishna?

Similarly, I could try out crack or heroin. If I gave them a try, I just might like them. But why would I want to do that? Isn’t using reason the best way to see reality? I’ll believe things the old-fashioned way: because there’s sufficient evidence to convince me that they’re true.

Maybe prayer is an avenue, not to God, but to atheism. Mawson says that atheists are logically obliged to investigate the possibility of the supernatural, but most of us who were raised in a religious setting have already conducted our own prayer experiments. That’s why we’re atheists. Some ex-Christians never got the sense that God was answering prayers. Some discovered that God just stopped answering and then realized God was never there.

Nothing fails like prayer.

Imagine a world without God, where prayers are unanswered, where prayer is just you talking to yourself, where you only imagined that a loving deity supported you in adversity, where bad things happen to good people for no reason, where only wishful thinking supports the ideas of heaven and hell.

Open your eyes, because that’s the world you’re living in.

But this isn’t an anarchist’s paradise—it’s a world where people stand on their own two feet, where they live and love and grow, where every day ordinary people do heroic and noble things for the benefit of strangers. Where warm spring days and rosy sunsets aren’t made by God but are explained by Science, where earthquakes and hurricanes happen for no good reason, and people pitch in to help clean up afterwards.

We’re like a kid learning to ride a bike. Picture the parent running alongside holding the bike steady. The kid feels confident, but then the parent lets go without the kid realizing it. He still pedals along happily, perhaps even talking to the parent who’s fallen behind. Suddenly he’s shocked to find that he’s on his own, maybe shocked enough to fall. That belief was reassuring.

We’re also on our own. Is that realization debilitating or exhilarating? I can’t fault anyone raised in a Christian environment for not wanting to give up that omniscient and loving deity, but society simply can’t support large fractions of people ignoring reality.

Training wheels are for children. C’mon in, the water’s fine.

Prayer must never be answered:
if it is, it ceases to be prayer and becomes correspondence.
— Oscar Wilde

Photo credit: Spiritual Science Research Foundation

Christianity, the Ultimate Unfalsifiable Hypothesis
William Lane Craig Misrepresents Christianity and Insults Islam
Christians: Can ANYTHING Change Your Mind?
’Tis the Season!
About Bob Seidensticker
  • http://www.thefinalharvest.org Vic Zarley

    This was interesting. I’m a devout Christian and I have a few thoughts about this “experiment” that might explain why it failed to convince you of God’s existence. You indicated that you were praying to a god or gods. It needed to be to God of the Old and New Testaments–or it could have been to Jesus. An experiment was already conducted in the Old testament when Elijah challenged the worshippers of Baal and while they got no response from God (sound familiar?), Elijah’s saturated with water woodpile had an explosive response from God. So, next time, to do this right, please follow the rules and pray to the right God.
    Also, Christians have been taught in God’s Word (the Bible) that belief is VERY important. A skeptical attitude even if just reflected in your heart and not outwardly, squelches the value of your experiment. So you must relinquish your skeptical belief for the time of your experiment and actually believe in God as you pray.
    Richard Dawkins said in his book, The God Delusion, that we have no control over our beliefs. That’s nonsense. Of course we do. God gave us free will. Also, He gave us the ability to believe whatever we want to so your choosing to NOT believe in Him is your choice but you are using God’s gift to deny Him. Strange.
    Well, when at first you don’t succeed, try try again. God bless
    http://www.thefinalharvest.org

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Vic:

      Thanks for your input.

      It needed to be to God of the Old and New Testaments–or it could have been to Jesus.

      That wasn’t the experiment. In your version, Yahweh is the only one whose existence we’re going to test. But why imagine that he exists or that the Christian claims are the only ones worth testing?

      An experiment was already conducted in the Old testament when Elijah challenged the worshippers of Baal and while they got no response from God (sound familiar?)

      It does sound familiar. It also sounds like an old story with no grounding in history.

      follow the rules and pray to the right God.

      And why is your god the right one?

      belief is VERY important.

      I guess that means that the sacrifice of Jesus doesn’t apply to me. I can’t just believe stuff. I follow the evidence and then I believe.

      relinquish your skeptical belief for the time of your experiment and actually believe in God as you pray.

      So we just bypass the whole experiment and assume that Vic’s god is the correct one. Heck—why even do the experiment? You’ve found the answer!

      Richard Dawkins said in his book, The God Delusion, that we have no control over our beliefs. That’s nonsense.

      Wow—I’m impressed. Give us a demonstration: believe in leprechauns for me.

    • Dude Man

      Sir, you sound like an idiot.

  • Jon

    Have you considered the idea that in matters such as this that the rules are if you believe it exist, it DOES exists and it not based in objective reality but subjective and the search lays inward. Not outward?

    That you are looking for gross and linear, and not something subtle and holistic?

    Have you also considered you used only one technique instead of the many available of many sects and faiths? You were not through if one looks at it that way.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Sure, that’s possible, but how much effort do I put into something for which there’s no evidence?

      • MNb

        Moreover there is a false dilemma hiding here: scientific reductionism vs. holism.
        When I studied politicology in Amsterdam I had a course methodology. I learned to formulate a question to investigate and to split it into partial questions until I could answer them by looking for empirical data.
        What laymen tend to forget that this is only half of the procedure. After collecting the empirical data I had to work my way back again to answer the original question.
        Science as a whole works that way too. We may not ever be able to formulate it, but the final goal remains a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. How more holistic do you want to have it? Given the road downward to all the details, how more subtle do you want to have it?

  • James Munyenye

    OH Yes this should be just like a young child who enters a library full of books. those which have been organized in a specific pattern and have been written by someone or a group of people but because the child is not aware or has not come across the authors of these books or the person who took charge of the arrangement of this library and all it consists of, they should just pretend that it has always been like that, there could be a Disney reason for as to why these books are in such order and by whom they were written without taking in consideration the possibility of the existence of an Aurthur or librarians. This will make sense to the atheist who wrote this article but to me it doesn’t.
    As the comment i just wrote doesn’t make sense so is the article that was just written above for they are all similar. what if for all you know that God ways is the science your trying to figure out, what for all you know all the “scientific ways of reason” are a waste of time after some time from now, what if all these words you just typed were not of any impact or importance to anyone besides you and your own point of views, what if your point of view is completely wrong. for all i know most of these scientific conclusions that had been made many years ago have been slightly improved if not completely proven to be wrong.

    We should consider a reflective thought about what we are about to share before we do other-wise w’ll all be like this guys who say they have carried out research yet foraal you know it was a mentally done research simply because they think they are smarter than everyone else as long as they are not like the “#rational” which is also debatable for a bunch of people we all have come across.

    Anyway stay blessed and think like a mortal being, rational but not stupid, (excuse ma lang. and no offense)

    • MNb

      What if my father were king? Then I would be his successor. So what?

      • James Munyenye

        see! thts wher you actually start from when you are to show your narrow mindedness. if you were to ask something more sensible or pay attention to a more realistic research then you would probably have had a better reply or a more problem solving one but when you tend to act like some intelligent fool then am sorry that won’t work out.
        “So what” so find out. as simple as that.
        “I can’t fault anyone raised in a Christian environment for not wanting
        to give up that omniscient and loving deity, but society simply can’t
        support large fractions of people ignoring reality.” with this your college’s quote (you both think the same anyway (no offense)), i will do the same to ask, SO WHAT?

        All this simply because one person pretends to be the all knowing creature that’s trying to observe, understand and teach others about what they have seen and learn, which for all you know is a bunch of non influential if not non-educational stuff.

        Get something better to do with your life other than carrying out research activities that won’t add anything onto your life but will on the other hand make waste of your time.
        Anyway Stay blessed, and think like a rational mortal being.

        • MNb

          “”So what” so find out. as simple as that.”
          I want to find out. That’s why I ask you.

          “think like a rational mortal being.”
          You asked a lot of “what if” questions. “So what” is a completely rational counterquestion. It’s telling that you don’t answer it, but start a rant – and an irrational one.

          “Get something better to do with your life”
          Go reread Matth 7:1.

          “you both think the same anyway”
          Yup, definitely just another judgmental guy. I never wrote

          “I can’t fault anyone raised in a Christian environment for not wanting to give up that omniscient and loving deity, but society simply can’t support large fractions of people ignoring reality.”
          and actually think it a cheap remark.

          “All this simply because one person pretends to be the all knowing creature”
          Ohoh, Matth 7:1 – my favourite quote from the Bible – is not for you. I never claimed that I’m an all knowing creature. If I did I wouldn’t have asked “so what”?

          “(no offense)”
          It’s impossible for me to take your answer as an offense. See, I think it so silly that you only amuse me. So I’m looking forward to your next rant. You’re invited.
          But thanks for not answering my question “so what?” Apparently you don’t have one, which renders all your “what if” questions irrelevant.

        • James Munyenye

          “so what?” i answered this before in my first comment and i don’t mind saying it again. We should consider a reflective thought about what we are about to share
          before we do other-wise w’ll all be like this guys who say they have
          carried out research yet for all you know it was a mentally done research,
          simply because they think they are smarter than everyone else for as long
          as the former thinks that the latter are not that “#rational” which is also debatable for a bunch
          of people we all have come across.

          i find it interesting that people who are the leaders (number one) when it comes to tagging religious people “irrational” are the very people that always for that matter are so much into quoting scriptures. This is so interesting that one directly quotes from the exact knowledge they despise. i find that so amazing. Anyway if i could shine more light onto that Mathew 7:1 says “judge not that you may not be judged” as it continues it states “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” if i tell you the truth (in terms of telling where you went wrong about a certain thing) i believe i have made a correct judgement and so will the same be done to me. but it all comes out wrong when i have accused you of what you have not done. if am to say you both think the same way from what i have perceived from your arguments i don’t think i am making a wrong statement, unless otherwise.

          “that’s another judgmental guy” i also believe you are being judgmental as well by tagging a number of people as judgmental yet you have no clues of their point of views.

          everyone makes judgement at a point in time but what the issues/problems is, is that people tend to make wrong judgements and that’s where all goes wrong. and if i have behaved the same way at some point, then my sincere apologies.

          “All this simply because one person pretends to be the all knowing creature” this was for the writer of the article who thought himself to be someone who should make “rational” conclusions (ways to go abt….) for humanity. but if it tackled you in anyway then you should take a second look at yourself.
          stay blessed and Think rational. God Bless.

        • hector_jones

          i find it interesting that people who are the leaders (number one) when it comes to tagging religious people “irrational” are the very people that always for that matter are so much into quoting scriptures. This is so interesting that one directly quotes from the exact knowledge they despise. i find that so amazing.

          Amen, brother. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid atheists directly quote the thing they are arguing against. Because every good christian knows that the only way to win an argument is to misquote your opponent.

        • MNb

          ” if am to say you both think the same way from what i have perceived from your arguments i don’t think i am making a wrong statement, unless otherwise.”
          I haven’t made any argument in this subthread, so how you perceive anything is as clear as mud to me. Of course I can speculate, but I’d need some more information first. I have only questioned the relevance of your “what if” questions, which is still not clear at all to me. You may call me dumb, but I simply don’t understand you. I didn’t even get that your “we should consider ….” was meant as an answer to “so what”.

          “carried out research yet for all you know it was a mentally done research”
          What are you talking about? What do you mean with mentally done research? Research on what? What do you mean with “for all I know”? I know a few things indeed, but unless you can read my mind you don’t have any idea of what I know or not know, simply because I haven’t told you yet.

          “simply because they think they are smarter than everyone else”
          Who does so? Not me. I can give you a long list of believers with a higher IQ than me.

          “as the former thinks that the latter are not that “#rational””
          I have never called any believer irrational, exactly because I recognize that all people, including atheist me, incline towards irrationality. Rational thinking requires effort. That applies to me as much as to you.

          “but it all comes out wrong when i have accused you of what you have not done”
          I have not written that I’m smarter than you. I have not written that you are irrational.

          “my sincere apologies.”

          Rejected, because you have done no harm to me, so I don’t need them. You only have done harm to yourself; that’s why I brought up Matth. 7:1. You cannot conclude that I should go “get something better to do with my life” simply because I ask “so what”. It makes you look foolish, not me. Unless I’m very mistaken that’s the meaning of Matth. 7:1.
          But let’s forget it. What interests me is the relevance and meaning of your “what if” questions. Like I wrote, I simply don’t understand you.

        • James Munyenye

          “Rejected, because you have done no harm to me, so I don’t need them. You
          only have done harm to yourself; that’s why I brought up Matth. 7:1.
          You cannot conclude that I should go “get something better to do with my
          life” simply because I ask “so what”. It makes you look foolish, not
          me”
          well then i believe i have done no one no harm not even myself and i believe that bringing up a knowledge whose reliability you strongly disagree with was something you shouldn’t have done coz from my point of view every single verse in that book we believe in has a in depth meaning (spiritually inspired) so if you share it without inspiration it’s as good as uttering a set of letter (call it word) without meaning. that aside back to you question.

          “What interests me is the relevance and meaning of your “what if” questions. Like I wrote, I simply don’t understand you”
          every single question that is brought up inspires one to take an in depth thought onto the subject. when one is biased onto a particular side of a subject or situation they tend to put their emphasis or focus onto that side of the “argument” or subject. so the “what if questions” where for the writer of this article to have their mind cast onto the opposite side of their arguments since they claim to have carried out a research about religion.

          “What if my father were king? Then I would be his successor. So what?”
          i didn’t see how this question showed someone behind it to be the kind of person who really wanted to find out about the “what if’s” tht wer stated earlier on so may be you could have stated it in a more understandable way. something more specific or right to the point.

          “as the former thinks that the latter are not that “#rational””
          this goes to a number of atheists i have come across on-line who tend to tag people irrational.
          so where do you still have a problem?

          “You may call me dumb, but I simply don’t understand you. I didn’t even
          get that your “we should consider ….” was meant as an answer to “so
          what”.
          I don’t have time to start calling people i have never name all sorts of names and the word “dumb” is not an exception.
          secondly a mentally done research is that which was creatively thought of by person, where by all the data collected was produced by them comfortably occupying a soft cushion and having a snack accompanied with the help a bunch of thoughts running through their minds. this type of data will by no means be of good use to the community and the human race at large.
          still have an issue feel free.

        • MNb

          “i believe i have done no one no harm not even myself”
          Then your apologies were meaningless.
          If you think looking like a fool isn’t harmful to you it’s OK with me.

          “bringing up a knowledge whose reliability you strongly disagree with”
          There you go again. Like I wrote don’t understand what knowledge you brought up, so obviously I can’t disagree. I have no idea what to agree or disagree with. Yet. Again you make yourself look like a fool.

          “something you shouldn’t have done”
          I only did so in your overheated imagination.

          “every single question that is brought up inspires one”
          Nope. No single question of yours inspired me. Every single of them put me off. Hence my question “so what?”

          “when one is biased onto a particular side of a subject” Here you get judgmental again. You don’t know if I’m biased because I have told you nothing about my thoughts about the subject you want to discuss. That’s because I don’t get what that subject actually is.

          “i didn’t see …..”
          And then your reaction is to make all kind of unjustified assumptions about me? Weird – but thanks for admitting that you’re judgmental and hence forgot about Matth. 7:1 indeed.

          “so where do you still have a problem?”
          I don’t belong to that number of atheists. Once again you confirm that you’re judgmental.

          “a mentally done research is that which was creatively thought of by person”
          What’s wrong with that? I’m going to ignore the remarks on the snack and the cushion, because they are totally irrelevant.

          “this type of data”
          This suggests that you don’t know what data are. Data are not the result of creative thoughts. They are the product of observations. So here we have finally the first concrete point. I disagree with your usage of the word data.
          Still you haven’t made clear what the relevance of your “what if” questions is. As I’m an impatient guy I’m going to conclude for the time that it’s zero. Of course you remain invited to show me otherwise.

        • James Munyenye

          “What’s wrong with that? I’m going to ignore the remarks on the snack and the cushion, because they are totally irrelevant”

          well for someone who is carrying out and “experiment” data that needs to be collected whilst moving from one place to the other just that which the writer talked about can’t be collect whilst the person is sitting down. for example to be specific one cannot find their pulse rate running by simply sitting down. it doesn’t make sense. and when you ask “What’s wrong with that?” then i don’t just get what your trying to be encouraging.

          “I only did so in your overheated imagination”

          which was irrelevant as well.

          “There you go again. Like I wrote don’t understand what knowledge you
          brought up, so obviously I can’t disagree. I have no idea what to agree
          or disagree with. Yet. Again you make yourself look like a fool”

          this actually tells me that your so quick to judgement. you don’t get the basis of your judgement before you pronounce it. this to me makes “you look more like a fool” the whole basis of the “knowledge based statement was for the fact that you brought up a bible verse “knowledge” that you, as an atheist, strongly disagree with so i don’t see where i say i brought up any sort of knowledge for you to agree or disagree with. you could re-read if you didn’t get it before you spring into a judgmental statement yet you’re the very person who is trying to condemn judgement.

          “Nope. No single question of yours inspired me. Every single of them put me off. Hence my question “so what?”

          exactly my point don’t take your time to think about a subject before you spring to judgement right before the whole statement ends you have mentally poped up with a “Nope”. that’s not the issue anyway. the fact that i didn’t specify you in-terms of bringing about inspiration should tell you something. when i say “one” i mean anyone coz i know that not all people are inspired by a particular subject anyway so that’s no shock to me. Not even Einstein inspires everyone so what abt me. thts not so new to me anyway.

          “This suggests that you don’t know what data are. Data are not the result
          of creative thoughts. They are the product of observations.”
          give me a word that will categories “the result
          of creative thoughts” if its not called data.

          “Still you haven’t made clear what the relevance of your “what if”
          This you quote “Nope. No single question of yours inspired me. Every single of them put me off. Hence my question “so what?” tells me that i don’t need to tell you the relevance of the what if’s for you don’t find them pushing(inspiring) you to think broadly about that particular subject those various subjects they entail.

          questions is. As I’m an impatient guy I’m going to conclude for the time
          that it’s zero. Of course you remain invited to show me otherwise.”
          You can go a head and make your conclusions like you normally do and i am not inspired to show you otherwise for i think all will go to waste yet it could be of use to another person.

          so stay blessed, God Bless. unless you still have any problem.

        • MNb

          “data that which the writer talked about”
          Could you get specific? BobS didn’t write about his pulse rate. So that’s irrelevant too.

          “this actually tells me that your so quick to judgement”
          How? And what judgment did I make? You’re getting close to bearing false witness here.

          “don’t take your time to think about a subject”
          Which subject? You hardly brought up any subject I could take my time to think about.

          “the fact that i didn’t specify you in-terms of bringing about inspiration should tell you something. when i say “one” i mean anyone coz i know that not all people are inspired by a particular subject anyway so that’s no shock to me.”
          I didn’t mean to shock you. I’d like to know on what you want to inspire me. You systemetically avoid telling me, so I’m getting bored.

          “unless you still have any problem.”
          I don’t. You don’t bring up anything to even potentially having a problem with. Your “what if” questions were meant to inspire; they failed as far as I’m concerned; apparently they also failed as far as others are concerned, because everybody but me neglects you. You are “not inspired to show otherwise” -ie you’re not inspired to inspire – so yes, I agree, this is a waste of time. I’m going to join the bunch and neglect you too.
          Have a happy life and bye.

        • James Munyenye

          “Could you get specific? BobS didn’t write about his pulse rate”.
          this is as quoted from “Bobs” article and the “here” are supposed to be hyper-links i should hope you saw that right?
          “I blogged about that experience here, here, here, and here.
          “Unbelievable,” the radio show and podcast that hosted the project,
          discussed the results with Tim Mawson, the philosopher whose paper
          formed its foundation, in two parts (part 1 and part 2). ”

          “So that’s irrelevant too.”

          The pulse rate was as an example of “a mentally carried out research” and if you ms-interpreted this example then you’re yet to get much more misunderstandings from a number of people’s point of views as sed before “quick to judge”

          “I didn’t mean to shock you. I’d like to know on what you want to inspire
          me. You systematically avoid telling me, so I’m getting bored”

          there are two thins we are dealing with now 1. inspire someone and 2. inspire someone to….. and all along i have been looking at the second of these two statements but it seem as though you were always captured by the first statement. i stated this before but for your sake i will re-state it. “every single question that is brought up inspires one to take an in depth thought onto the subject” that’s to say that if one looks at a question, statement, opinion or subject at hand, they are persuaded (if at all interested) to think about that particular subject. this gives them an opportunity to take a second thought on the possible answers they could have suggested earlier.

          “Your “what if” questions were meant to inspire; they failed as far as
          I’m concerned; apparently they also failed as far as others are
          concerned, because everybody but me neglects you”
          am glad you said “as far as I’m concerned” but the fact that you included “as far as others are” makes me wonder whether you scanned through their previous thoughts to come to such a conclusion?

          (small reminder)not all thoughts are always put n writing if that’s what you based on to come to such a conclusion.

          anyway right from your previous answer “I don’t.” i believe there are no issues left hanging and so you can a head to go in peace in joining “the bunch”.

          God bless.

  • James Munyenye

    as quoted from (1 Corinthians chapter 1 vs 18-31) and please as much as possible to come ONLY after you read it all. if you don’t then don’t bother commenting.

    “18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]

    20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. 26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

    • hector_jones

      Wait, what’s this from? Because this is the first time I’ve ever heard about any of this. Where can I learn more?

      • James Munyenye

        (1 Corinthians chapter 1 vs 18-31)

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

        Yes, brother, there’s an entire book filled with the wisdom of your creator and how he loved you so much that he sacrificed his son.

        Well, not so much sacrificed him as much as had him out of action for a day or so. But he missed a couple of good shows because that was before Tivo–so that’s a small but not insignificant sacrifice!

    • Ron

      “And the LORD spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three— no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count. Neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.”

      Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9-21

      • James Munyenye

        You understand now that, what is Spiritually inspired is way different from what is mentally built up by man. this should be a lesson learned for you or if you still doubt it go back and compare your “scripture” to the actual biblical Scriptures and you will see how drastic this change was. (from the biblical scripture to your manipulated scripture). lol
        Anyway stay Blessed and Get Spiritually inspired.
        Mind you that was not the “LORD” it was you uncontrolled neurons that were working you out to make you pretend as though what you wer trying to say of the Lord. sorry try again


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X