What are the odds?

Tim Robbins

santing wrote: »

In which he shows himself a man of his times and not a man of God. Wesley was a great preacher, but sometimes he was wrong.

So let's, as you suggest, every single man at that time thinks witch hunting is ok, what does that mean? There was no Christianity, or "man of God" at all then.

Or, there were Christians who disapproved of Witchcraft (afaik the jesuits did), in which case Wesley was not simply just a man of his times?

Which is it?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Wasn't it also Wesley who advocated witch burning - the burning alive of innocent women?

Not that I'm aware of. Could you provide a source?

Possibly you're confusing Wesley withy Luther? Luther advocated the persecution of Jews, the burning of witches, and the drowning of the Anabaptists (for holding views that are held today by most Protestants). I've never seen any quotation by wesley endorsing witch burning.

santing

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So let's, as you suggest, every single man at that time thinks witch hunting is ok, what does that mean? There was no Christianity, or "man of God" at all then.

Or, there were Christians who disapproved of Witchcraft (afaik the jesuits did), in which case Wesley was not simply just a man of his times?

Which is it?

Wesley was right that he disapproved of witchcraft. He wrong in his discernment of what witches are ("man of his time") and what a christian response should be to witches.

Witches will be punished - but the punisher must be God, He does not give this authority to the Church.

PDN

santing wrote: »

Wesley was right that he disapproved of witchcraft. He wrong in his discernment of what witches are ("man of his time") and what a christian response should be to witches.

Witches will be punished - but the punisher must be God, He does not give this authority to the Church.

I've googled this a bit and, as I suspected, can find no reference at all to Wesley advocating the burning of witches. I think the Wesley accusation is unfounded.

santing

PDN wrote: »

I've googled this a bit and, as I suspected, can find no reference at all to Wesley advocating the burning of witches. I think the Wesley accusation is unfounded.

I had googled it as well and had found one site claiming that Wesley was in favour of witch burning. There was however no reference to back it up. I did find a second site, again without reference. They probably are thinking of the fact that Wesley was against the abolishment of the idea of Witchcraft.

So I accepted the accusation against Wesley to quickly. (I still believe he erred now and then )

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I guess I was being naive and should have realised that there are some atheists who find one Christian encouraging another in the area of prayer to be so threatening to their worldview that they are compelled to desperately try to disprove any connection with God.

I'm actually trying to suggest, if I've any motivation at all, that the example you give isn't really challenging any atheist worldview. Its confirming it.

What I actually find is, putting this thread together with the Novena one running currently, is that Kelly1 is actually running a more rational line of argument and one more conscious of the implications of this kind of thing.

You seem to be arguing a defence of superstition, and I'm not even confident that you're seeing that. If you're prayer for car parking spaces (and its a free country, clearly you can pray for whatever you like) and rejoicing when you find one, please understand you're simply confirming the atheist prejudice. Because there really is no difference between that and carrying a rabbits foot, or carrying around a crystal to reduce anxiety.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Not that I'm aware of. Could you provide a source?

He said that:
"The giving up of witchcraft is in effect the giving up of the Bible".
However, you could argue that does not explictly include the burning of witches, or that it is implicitly included.

I should have been clearer. Apologies.

AFAIK he said this when British parliament was trying to ban witchcraft so he wasn't with popular opinion.
You are correct about Luther, there are also some quote attributes to Calvin about witch killing.

Splendour

JimiTime wrote: »

Well actually, in Romans it does not seem to reason like this. Its more, 'God chooses'. Its a difficult one, for a believer like myself, never mind for a non-believer.

Ditto JimiTime-hence my earlier post in this thread. I also struggle with the 'God chooses' bit. I think most Christians if they are honest have at some time or other wrestled with this. I don't expect God to answer every prayer in my own life, and I know there are plenty of others suffering far more than I, but when up against so many problems, I sometimes wonder why he doesn't answer at least one prayer.

It hasn't dented my faith; I walk stronger with Him every day, but it makes me question God's will and timing. I suppose as God said to Job 'who are we to question?' I actually don't like the book of Job much because Job got a 'Hollywood' ending and a couple of points I ponder on this are:

A. As anyone here who has lost a loved one knows, no other person
(especially a child) can replace or 'restore' the one you've lost.

B. I often wonder why God did restore twice as much to Job? Would job have
still been strong in the Lord if this hadn't happened?

Sorry, I digress...

JimiTime

Splendour wrote: »

Ditto JimiTime-hence my earlier post in this thread. I also struggle with the 'God chooses' bit. I think most Christians if they are honest have at some time or other wrestled with this. I don't expect God to answer every prayer in my own life, and I know there are plenty of others suffering far more than I, but when up against so many problems, I sometimes wonder why he doesn't answer at least one prayer.

It hasn't dented my faith; I walk stronger with Him every day, but it makes me question God's will and timing. I suppose as God said to Job 'who are we to question?' I actually don't like the book of Job much because Job got a 'Hollywood' ending and a couple of points I ponder on this are:

A. As anyone here who has lost a loved one knows, no other person
(especially a child) can replace or 'restore' the one you've lost.

B. I often wonder why God did restore twice as much to Job? Would job have
still been strong in the Lord if this hadn't happened?

Sorry, I digress...

I love the book of Job myself, he's a fine example of humility and faithfulness. But it is certainly very perplexing. The whole replacing the children thing, just does not compute. Just like Abraham though, there is such a trust and faith in God. I sometimes think, 'why did God not just tell Satan to get lost'. I'll continue to ponder. Actually, I think i might read Job tonite.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

You seem to be arguing a defence of superstition, and I'm not even confident that you're seeing that. If you're prayer for car parking spaces (and its a free country, clearly you can pray for whatever you like) and rejoicing when you find one, please understand you're simply confirming the atheist prejudice. Because there really is no difference between that and carrying a rabbits foot, or carrying around a crystal to reduce anxiety.

Apart from dogmatic assertion do you have any rationale for equating prayer with rabbit's feet and crystals that does require atheism as a prerequisite?

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Apart from dogmatic assertion do you have any rationale for equating prayer with rabbit's feet and crystals that does require atheism as a prerequisite?

If you are clearly using prayer as a substitute for a rabbits foot, what further rationale is necessary?

As for atheism being a prerequisite, I've already pointed out that we've a current example of a devout Roman Catholic spotting the same mistake in one of his co-religionists.

So why the resistance to a fairly obvious point?

santing

Splendour wrote: »

Ditto JimiTime-hence my earlier post in this thread. I also struggle with the 'God chooses' bit. I think most Christians if they are honest have at some time or other wrestled with this. I don't expect God to answer every prayer in my own life, and I know there are plenty of others suffering far more than I, but when up against so many problems, I sometimes wonder why he doesn't answer at least one prayer.

Splendour, it is indeed a struggle if God doesn't seem to answer prayer - and esp. if He doesn't seem to answer any prayer.
I preached this Sunday on Acts 16 where the Apostle Paul seems to have difficulty in understanding where God wanted him to go... But eventually God did make it clear. That is certainly also my experience. I don't understand why God doesn't answer some prayers - but He is the God who hears and answers, esp. when I need Him most. (Mind you - His answer might be 'No,' or 'not now' or 'not you'!)

Splendour wrote: »

It hasn't dented my faith; I walk stronger with Him every day, but it makes me question God's will and timing. I suppose as God said to Job 'who are we to question?' I actually don't like the book of Job much because Job got a 'Hollywood' ending and a couple of points I ponder on this are:

A. As anyone here who has lost a loved one knows, no other person
(especially a child) can replace or 'restore' the one you've lost.

B. I often wonder why God did restore twice as much to Job? Would job have
still been strong in the Lord if this hadn't happened?

Sorry, I digress...

The second point B actually might help to understand point A. Job did get twice as much as he had before, but not of children. His old wealth was gone and replaceable, but not his old children. They were not replaced, he did receive a new, additional set of children though.

If God would have given the same wealth back people might have said that God had made a mistake in the suffering of Job. Now they could see that God had made a progress in Job's life.

Splendour

JimiTime wrote: »

I love the book of Job myself, he's a fine example of humility and faithfulness. But it is certainly very perplexing. The whole replacing the children thing, just does not compute. Just like Abraham though, there is such a trust and faith in God. I sometimes think, 'why did God not just tell Satan to get lost'. I'll continue to ponder. Actually, I think i might read Job tonite.

Stick on some Leonard Cohen while you're at it

I should have said it's the ending of Job I don't like. ues the acceptance and humility are extremely encouraging. If you get any revelation while reading it, (the end that is...) please enlighten me!

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

If you are clearly using prayer as a substitute for a rabbits foot, what further rationale is necessary?

As for atheism being a prerequisite, I've already pointed out that we've a current example of a devout Roman Catholic spotting the same mistake in one of his co-religionists.

So why the resistance to a fairly obvious point?

Because I am not using prayer as a substitute for a rabbit's foot.

I believe that God is the maker of heaven and earth and that He has the power to change circumstances. He asks us in His Word to pray for things in faith and to expect to see results. Therefore it is entirely consistent with Christian belief to believe that when we specifically pray for things that we will often see our prayers answered. This is just as logical when it comes to praying for a parking space as it when praying for a child to be healed of cancer - just one seems a lot harder to us than the other and so requires more faith.

Carrying a rabbit's foot is based on the belief that an inanimate object will somehow bring you luck.

The two are in no way equivalent unless you start from an atheistic assumption that all belief in the supernatural is junk.

vibe666

wolfsbane wrote: »

Every thing that troubles His people is a concern to Him. Nothing is too small to bring....<snip><snip><snip>

seriously, can you hear yourself?

every single time this quesiton is brought up someone waves some obscure piece of scripture to dismiss it and brush away an inconvenient truth.

you're talling me that your god wants innocent children to suffer and die as a lesson to others but he can still happily find time to mess around with your mundane little lives?

what happened to children being innocent?

okay, so god does what he wants and who are any of us to question it?

excuse me? seriously. i question any god who would act in such a way. benevolent father my a$$!

you have a book full of things he's supposed to have done in the world (all of which before the days of the camcorder I might add) yet when it comes to protecting innocent children he's too busy giving people directions in the back of beyond to do anything about it.

I'm sorry but no, no way at all ever would I believe in such a god as that.

how can any of you honestly, seriously believe in such propaganda?

anyway back to the subject at hand.

</rant>

I'm sorry to rain on your parade here, but every single 'miracle' performed by your god in this thread has also happened to the rest of us unbelievers too.

atheists bump into each other at the oddest times too and in every corner of the world. I bumped into my old best mate from school who I'd lost touch with at a service station at the other end of the country in the UK about 10 years ago.

my brothers wife bumped into her parents next door neighbours in a craft market on the other side of the world. 10 seconds either way and she'd never have even known they were in the same country, never mind the same town.

i bumped into my girlfriends flatmate from a town in wales when i was in Oz. I've bumped into my step brother in Slane when neither of us even knew the other was in Ireland (both from the UK). he was only there for the weekend at the last minute and purely by a fluke ended up in slane. i was supposed to meet a half a dozen other people there and even with text messaging we never even managed to hook up (mind you were were all a bit p1ssed).

if you were going to a hindu conference do you think you would have credited Ganesh with helping you bump into each other?

so to answer your original question, your odds are actually pretty good that at various times in your life you will bump into people like this just like it's very likely that the rest of us (religious or not) will too.

just as billions of monkeys mashing away at billions of keyboards will evertually write up the complete works of shakesphere, or even the bible.

Splendour

santing wrote: »

The second point B actually might help to understand point A. Job did get twice as much as he had before, but not of children. His old wealth was gone and replaceable, but not his old children. They were not replaced, he did receive a new, additional set of children though.

If God would have given the same wealth back people might have said that God had made a mistake in the suffering of Job. Now they could see that God had made a progress in Job's life.

Hmm... as far as my knowledge of Job goes it says his sons and daughters were killed. I don't recall it mentioning any surviving children. Can you point out where this is please?

As regards the wealth being given back twofold-this is the bit I have problems with! That to me smacks of people believing in God purely for what he gave to Job rather than Job standing on faith alone. Why did they need to see God giving this prosperity to Job. Course maybe I'm just jealous

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Carrying a rabbit's foot is based on the belief that an inanimate object will somehow bring you luck.

The two are in no way equivalent unless you start from an atheistic assumption that all belief in the supernatural is junk.

I'm sorry, but your insistence that this requires atheism does not seem to be held up by the nature of the discussion. Some theists seem to similarly have a problem with the idea that prayer brings you luck - which seems to be essentially what you are saying. I've already essentially made this point, so I cannot really see why you are apparently not digesting it.

So the division on this point is not, as you'd appear to wish it was, between atheists and theists. Its between folk who believe in various superstitions, and bathe their lives in rituals and/or sacred objects, some of which are crystal waving atheists, and people who see all that as bunk. The people who see all that as bunk are not all atheists. Simple as.

Splendour

santing wrote: »

Splendour, it is indeed a struggle if God doesn't seem to answer prayer - and esp. if He doesn't seem to answer any prayer.
I preached this Sunday on Acts 16 where the Apostle Paul seems to have difficulty in understanding where God wanted him to go... But eventually God did make it clear. That is certainly also my experience. I don't understand why God doesn't answer some prayers - but He is the God who hears and answers, esp. when I need Him most. (Mind you - His answer might be 'No,' or 'not now' or 'not you'!)

Btw Santing, thanks for the brief teaching-always good to catch an online sermon
It's the 'eventually' that drives me crazy! How many years does one have to wait just for a break?!

I don't want to come across as some depressed downtrodden Christian because I'm not at all; I'm just a Christian who has alot of c**p going on is all. Many of my friends have said they would go do-lally if they were me, but herein lies the answer to one of my prayers (oops..I lied earlier). I ask God every day for HIS strength to see me through and though a lot of those days are troublesome, I have not gotten totally depressed. This is a huge blessing and one which I'm so so grateful for.

Thank you Jesus...

PDN

vibe666 wrote: »

you're talling me that your god wants innocent children to suffer and die as a lesson to others but he can still happily find time to mess around with your mundane little lives?

I certainly do not believe that God wants children to suffer and die. God can find time to do anything. Being busy has nothing to do with anything.

you have a book full of things he's supposed to have done in the world (all of which before the days of the camcorder I might add)

Well the book in question was written before the day of the camcorder, which is hardly shocking since the camcorder has only existed for the briefest sliver of human history.

yet when it comes to protecting innocent children he's too busy giving people directions in the back of beyond to do anything about it.

Nobody's claiming that God answers every prayer 100% of the time. You have no idea how many children have been protected. Also, I've already stated, being busy has nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry but no, no way at all ever would I believe in such a god as that. how can any of you honestly, seriously believe in such propaganda?

Because it makes much more sense than your ill-thought rant.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade here, but every single 'miracle' performed by your god in this thread has also happened to the rest of us unbelievers too.

I've certainly not claimed anything in this thread to be a miracle. Did somebody else? I must have missed that bit.

just as billions of monkeys mashing away at billions of keyboards will evertually write up the complete works of shakesphere, or even the bible.

That bit of silliness just ensured that no-one will take anything else you say seriously. Congratulations.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I've certainly not claimed anything in this thread to be a miracle. Did somebody else? I must have missed that bit.

Then what is a miracle? Would it be a miracle if someone made an unexpected recovery from cancer, following prayer? How would that be different in principle to the discovery of an unexpected car parking space, following prayer?

PDN wrote: »

That bit of silliness just ensured that no-one will take anything else you say seriously. Congratulations.

A word in your shell-like. You might want to hesitate before trying to claim the intellectual high ground in this particular thread.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

I'm sorry, but your insistence that this requires atheism does not seem to be held up by the nature of the discussion. Some theists seem to similarly have a problem with the idea that prayer brings you luck - which seems to be essentially what you are saying. I've already essentially made this point, so I cannot really see why you are apparently not digesting it.

I'm probably not digesting it because it is an invalid point.

I am not saying that prayer brings you luck. I am saying that prayer frequently moves God to intervene in situations. The two concepts are clearly distinct.

Perhaps a simple analogy might help (if it doesn't clarify your confusion it will at least drive Tim Robbins crazy ). Imagine a kid (let's call him Tim) who knows that he can call on his father for assistance. If he runs out of money or needs a lift home from school then Tim will ask his dad. His dad doesn't always respond positively - but he does so sufficiently often to justify Tim in keeping on asking. Now imagine another kid who has no father (let's call him Robin). Robin can't reasonably ask his non-existent father for anything, so he carries a rabbit's foot in the hope that it will make him lucky. Now, who will argue that Tim's faith in his father's ability and willingness to help when requested is equivalent to Robin's hope that the rabbit's foot might make him a bit luckier in general? The only person who will argue for such equivalence is the person who thinks Tim's father doesn't actually exist.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Then what is a miracle? Would it be a miracle if someone made an unexpected recovery from cancer, following prayer? How would that be different in principle to the discovery of an unexpected car parking space, following prayer?

I would define a miracle as something that appears to violate what we call the laws of nature (eg, the dead being raised, water turning to wine, a cancerous tumour disappearing instantly). God motivating someone to drive away from their parking space 30 seconds earlier or later than they would otherwise have done so hardly qualifies as a miracle in my book.

A word in your shell-like. You might want to hesitate before trying to claim the intellectual high ground in this particular thread.

I don't accept that a belief in prayer, thereby offending the dogmatic presuppositions of a few atheists, is indicative of a lack of intellect.

santing

Splendour wrote: »

Hmm... as far as my knowledge of Job goes it says his sons and daughters were killed. I don't recall it mentioning any surviving children. Can you point out where this is please?

No, I didn't say (or wanted to imply) that any of the first 10 children survived. But rather than getting 20 children back, he only got 10. The children that died were not replaced.

Splendour wrote: »

As regards the wealth being given back twofold-this is the bit I have problems with! That to me smacks of people believing in God purely for what he gave to Job rather than Job standing on faith alone. Why did they need to see God giving this prosperity to Job. Course maybe I'm just jealous

The original question - from Satan - was that Job worshipped God because of his wealth. God had proven Satan wrong. That God gave job twice as much was solely based on grace.
And yes, sometimes I am jealous as well - but I may not be able to handle wealth the way Job did!

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I'm probably not digesting it because it is an invalid point.

You wish.

PDN wrote: »

The only person (other than a total buffoon) who will argue for such equivalence is the person who thinks Tim's father doesn't actually exist.

It doesn't quite fit your analogy, but the issue is the nature of Tim's father. Not all the believers in Tim's father think he helps them materially. They think he's more a source of sound advice, but leaves them to make their own way in the world. As to the other perception of Tim's father, recall Pip's horror at the end of Great Expectations when he discovers who his benefactor was.

And in fairness to those superstitious Catholics, I recall in my religious education priests explaining clearly that (for the sake of argument) cures at Lourdes were as rare as hen's teeth, and that was not what the place was about. The purpose of all of that prayer and devotion, as they saw it, was to find spiritual strength to get on with life.

Is accepting the fact that more folk that atheists would raise eyebrows at your divinely provided car parking service too great a leap for your worldview?

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I would define a miracle as something that appears to violate what we call the laws of nature (eg, the dead being raised, water turning to wine, a cancerous tumour disappearing instantly). God motivating someone to drive away from their parking space 30 seconds earlier or later than they would otherwise have done so hardly qualifies as a miracle in my book.

Ok, Houdini, can you explain how this rests with your equation of car parking and cancer curing a little earlier

PDN wrote: »

This is just as logical when it comes to praying for a parking space as it when praying for a child to be healed of cancer - just one seems a lot harder to us than the other and so requires more faith.

That suggests you were seeing the two things as being different in size, but not in their essential nature. Its just that getting you an unexpected car parking space is a smaller miracle.

PDN wrote: »

I don't accept that a belief in prayer, thereby offending the dogmatic presuppositions of a few atheists, is indicative of a lack of intellect.

But I'm not offended at all. The only folk who might be offended would be theists who object to your picture of God as your personal Lock Hard.

santing

Splendour wrote: »

I don't want to come across as some depressed downtrodden Christian because I'm not at all; I'm just a Christian who has alot of c**p going on is all. Many of my friends have said they would go do-lally if they were me, but herein lies the answer to one of my prayers (oops..I lied earlier). I ask God every day for HIS strength to see me through and though a lot of those days are troublesome, I have not gotten totally depressed. This is a huge blessing and one which I'm so so grateful for.

Thank you Jesus...

I don't know your circumstances, and I don't want to sound cheap, but He is the God who really sees. If you read the end of Hebrews 11, if you read the Psalms, you can see that many have struggled with this before.

Heb 11:39 ESV And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised

I can only say: "His grace is enough"

2Co 12:8-9 ESV Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. (9) But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately he had no directions as to how to find the Conference venue - so as he made his way through the Florida Panhandle, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana etc. he prayed for God to help him find directions.

MapQuest ftw.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Is accepting the fact that more folk that atheists would raise eyebrows at your divinely provided car parking service too great a leap for your worldview?

No, but I think only the atheists are being consistent in their eye-brow raising.

No doubt there are Christians who raise their eyebrows, but I believe that is because of muddled thinking and inconsistency. To do so would require them to take one of the following positions.

a) To reject the testimony of the Bible out of hand yet to choose to embrace a faith whose basis is primarily that of the Biblical revelation.

b) To have a defective view of God's eternity and omniscience and to think that God is somehow too busy to be bothered with comparatively unimportant matters.

c) To believe that God commands us to pray in the Bible, promises to answer prayer, but is really a liar who knows that he won't answer prayer at all because it only has psychological and therapeutic benefits.

I think a logical and thoughtful reading of the Bible will make clear that the following propositions are true:
i) God wants people to pray.
ii) God is able to answer prayers.
iii) God wants people to have faith when they pray, expecting an answer.
iv) God is interested in all of our lives, including apparently small issues.

All I am doing is approaching the subject of prayer in a way that is coherent consistent with these normal Christian beliefs. Since you don't believe in the Bible or in God then obviously you will disagree with me, but I think, upon reflection, you will see that you are unjust in trying to equate this logical application of Christian principles with the hopeful bearer of a rabbit's foot. I must say, Schuhart, I have normally found you to be a fair and thoughtful opponent in any debates we have had. I would almost think that it is you that is jetlagged today rather than me!

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

Ok, Houdini, can you explain how this rests with your equation of car parking and cancer curing a little earlier? That suggests you were seeing the two things as being different in size, but not in their essential nature. Its just that getting you an unexpected car parking space is a smaller miracle.

From our perspective there is a clear difference. We find it much harder to believe in a bonafide miracle than we do in something small and 'easy' (as if terms like 'easy' have any meaning when discussing an omnipotent deity). I am reluctant to claim anything as a miracle because I get sick of people making overblown claims.

To God there is no difference. I have often prayed for 10 euro in order to put petrol in my car. I once had to pray for 983,000 euro in order to save our church building from being repossessed in two weeks time. In each case God answered my prayer. Some people saw the 983,000 as a great miracle but were distinctly unimpressed by the provision of the 10 euro. In my book neither were miracles as no law of nature was breached (the money did not miraculously fly down from the clouds).

My OP was a testimony to how God answered my prayer through an incident that was extremely improbable. I never claimed a miracle.

(With one deft bound Houdini is free!)

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

From our perspective there is a clear difference. We find it much harder to believe in a bonafide miracle than we do in something small and 'easy' (as if terms like 'easy' have any meaning when discussing an omnipotent deity). I am reluctant to claim anything as a miracle because I get sick of people making overblown claims.

To God there is no difference. I have often prayed for 10 euro in order to put petrol in my car. I once had to pray for 983,000 euro in order to save our church building from being repossessed in two weeks time. In each case God answered my prayer. Some people saw the 983,000 as a great miracle but were distinctly unimpressed by the provision of the 10 euro. In my book neither were miracles as no law of nature was breached (the money did not miraculously fly down from the clouds).

My OP was a testimony to how God answered my prayer through an incident that was extremely improbable. I never claimed a miracle.

(With one deft bound Houdini is free!)

I think it good to point out that you never used this incident to show God existing etc. I.E. it wasn't to convince anyone that God exists etc. It was posted as an encouraging story of a prayer being answered. I think people who believe it was just coincidence would be entirely reasonable in thinking as much, would you? I suppose I'm always skeptical of these vague-ish type scenario's. I don't think prayer fulfilled in this manner is going to turn the heart of an atheist, or do anything of great consequence to the faithful. That is what i would think on it anyway. I remember a JW friend of mine telling me of a suicidal man having a JW tract blow in his window just when he was about to top himself. He read it, and changed his life etc. Its not that I don't believe prayers wont be answered, its that, i suppose I really don't know how it works. Ok I'm starting to just think out loud now and ramble on. Time for bed me thinks:)

night guys.