I think the most likely explanation can be found in the first couple sentences.
quote:About five years ago, I and my friends were active in fellowship and communion with other Christian Believers. We were praying together in agreement, and we were becoming at peace with our relationships to each other, the world in general, and God as we knew Him.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
do point out where the scriptures get it right and where believers get it wrong.
Fair enough. And you know that it is right because....
A) The Book says so. B) Logic, reason, and the reality of human morality say so.
Sheesh. Phat, there are no moral or ethical observations or recommendations or commandments in the Bible stories that did not also appear even earlier in other religions and social systems.
Study the writings of Mencius or Confucius or the sayings of the Buddha or Taoism or any of the thousands of religions that existed before Christianity.
IF B, then: 1) Humans don't need God. We have an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong without Him. 2) Occasionally, the Bible points out wisdom that we already intuitively knew.
Almost. The Bible points out wisdom that was also common to many social systems. There is nothing "intuitive" about it; it evolved through experience and mythos that was passed down generation by generation, society by society.
IF 2, then: a) We were born with knowledge of the right intuition.
But the evidence show we are NOT born with any "right intuition" but rather it develops over time and experience.
This is hardly Language In Thought & Action, here. It is a simple discussion.
But it most certainly is Phat. You are using words but they don't seem to make any sense.
Evidence is irrelevant to my understanding.
The above is a great example of where Language in Thought and Action is relevant to this discussion. How can you have any understanding without evidence? You can have beliefs or fantasies or thoughts or guesses or opinions or slogans or word salad without any evidence but how can anyone have understanding without testing and evidence?
For the record, I am clear on who I believe I am praying to. I prefer to call it "communicating with".
Again. Communicating is a two way transaction. You cannot communicate with something unless that thing can and does respond.
So tell me this: When you, a self-proclaimed Christian pray, do you have any conception of who it is you are praying to? Or do you consider the question impossible to assess or conclude?
When I pray I can use a placeholder, a symbol that I create and choose, but that is all that it is. There is absolutely no way for me to know who if anyone or anything is on the other end of the line. I can pray to God or Allah or Ganesha or Coyote or Raven or Shiva or Vishnu and it is all the same. If there is any answer it is the content that is relevant and important, not the source.
No, not counter-intuitive, simply pointless and of no value beyond the fact it seems to make you feel good. And that's fine if it makes you happy. And yes, it seems that you simply won't use evidence or reason or logic or reality.
Maybe so, but a believer by definition believes either in a source (God, Jesus, Coyote, Raven, etc...) or in themselves (Content).
Basics Phat, basics. That is a totally nonsense statement. Both of your examples are "source" and neither has anything to do with "content".
Learn what words actually mean and you may avoid making such silly assertions.
Learn the difference between "source" and "content".
The way that I define believers in this context is the belief in a God Who listens or is aware of your prayer in some regard.
No one doubts that that is what you believe.
Seems that to you, all that is important in prayer is how YOU process it and respond to it.
Exactly. The only thing that can ever be observed is behavior. The only thing that can ever accomplish anything is behavior. The only thing that can be tested is behavior.