Prayer to start a race

truth behold wrote:

No animal or other matter has the logic to reason or profess there is a Higher Being.

Koko. Nevermind the implications of Homo floresis.

We therefore as a human cannot come from a chimps, monkeys, or whatever evolution matter devised throughout the years.

This is a generally misunderstood point. It's not that we "came from" modern chimps and apes, but rather that we share a common ancestor.

I have plenty of education. Did you ever study ancient culture words to better understand the context of writings? Or do you simply read and put sentences together to look smart? You have not shown any knowledge besides what you learned in a basic English class. It is difficult to explain ancient history and the meaning of its words from that time period. Then I explain how it clearly in how relates throughout history and to our lives today. This is not a radical teaching but one found in many universities. I do not know whether you even have much of an education. Please make a logical statement that has to do with the matter at hand.

"We therefore as a human cannot come from a chimps, monkeys, or whatever evolution matter devised throughout the years."

You write this loopy shìt, then claim to be educated and demand that others write sensibly? Between you and the creative historian claiming that there were 500 witnesses to Christ's return from the land of dirt and worms, a few people out there should, to paraphrase Nino Brown, quit suckin' on those glass dicks and get with the program.

truth behold wrote:

I have plenty of education....

Then I explain how it clearly in how relates throughout history and to our lives today.

Let me guess: Bob Jones University?

See I was right. You clearly tried to write with better grammar and precision and all you could come up with is the above. I teach at a college and you would fail my lowest level class (and believe me, it is VERY low). What you can't seem to grasp is that I am not being picky here. What you write is incomprehensible. You cannot communicate a basic thought in any coherant way and you then blame the reading for not decoding your gibberish. I would love to address the "matter at hand" if I had even an inkling of what you were trying to say. Are you beginning to grasp why your opinion doesn't matter? When you lose the respect of your reader with poor writing and logic they will never listen to what you have to say.

Well, I don't feel like sharing that story here. Let's just say that if a few Pentecostal churches spontanously imploded during services then I'd be the one not seeming all that devastated about it.

And I'm sure you have good intentions but I still decline to make this personal. But you do not need to worry about this evil and offensive atheist being "in your life" as we don't know each other. I know who you are because I race on the PA circuit. That's how I knew your Humboldt time and guessed that you were talking about CIM. But we have never spoken. We have raced against each other but you have beaten me each time, praise the lord.

I wish you well in your pursuit of UKA selection for Gothenburg, but if you make it and have success and then praise Jesus in your post-race interview, then I will probably catch myself wishing you hadn't made it. And then life would go on...

Cheers Ron. Just so you know - I don't consider anyone an "evil and offensive atheist being"! Feel free to say hello at any race - I promise not to even mention the subject ;) Who knows, maybe you will even find me likeable enough that you wouldn't hold it against me if I did thank God for getting me to Gothenburg (or wherever he gets me!).

As I scan these messages I note that not a single person has mentioned that they have ever been to a race that was started with some form of prayer or acknowledgement to a religion other than Christianity. In contrast, some people (myself included) have been to races that started with a Christian prayer. I find that to be an interesting observation. This past summer I was at a race with sweltering heat and humidity (for our area at least), and we received a lovely little starting prayer which included a call for God to look over the runners and help them. I found it odd that God chose to help the runners by giving us the worst weather of the week on race day. My conclusion was that this minister didn't have much sway with God, God for some reason doesn't like runners, God could not care less about a local 5k, or that no one was listening in spite of the minister's exhortation. No matter what the real answer, it simply points up the inefficacy of this minister's prayer, so why bother? I find the whole thing sort of darkly comical, sort of like watching a full grown man get nervous about the number 13.

For shame! A guy with expertise in DC/AC circuit theory can't figure out the demographics of the country? 80% Christian. What's the % of races run by non-Christians? And just to put your smug, more atheist-than-thou posting to rest, I ran a race in Burlington Vermont with about 10 invocations including an atheistic testament to, well...atheism (yep, no joke)...so there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

How many businesses are run by that 80% sector? How many gather their employees (or, for a more direct analogy to the running race scenario, their customers) for regular prayers prior to or during the workday? How many say the pledge of allegiance together? Sing the national anthem?

JimFiore wrote:

This past summer I was at a race with sweltering heat and humidity (for our area at least), and we received a lovely little starting prayer which included a call for God to look over the runners and help them...

(NOTE: This is a transcript from a therapy session not known to have actually happened. Apologies to Albert Ellis.)

Jimbo: I recently ran a race sponsored by the local rescue mission. I ran it last year for the first time not knowing too much about them other than that they assist the homeless, alcoholics, etc. I discovered their evangelical edge before/during the race itself but I sort of wrote it off as the head guy and his wife were retiring to somewhere else so I figured the "send-off" may have been a bit excessive (like the Contemporary Christian singer they had for postrace).

The Rational-Emotive Evangelist: No one physically forced you to go to this race, did they? No -- the only one responsible for your being there is God.

Jimbo: Anyway, we line up this year for the start and it's in the 70's with 99% relative humidity. The sweat is rolling off my head and I'm just standing there. So out comes the new head of the organization who greets the runners. Then he gives a reading from scripture and I immediately begin to get pissed at the delay.

tREE: We get angry when we don't get what we want. But did you really need to start three minutes earlier than you did? There's only one right answer -- the Good Lord was testing you.

Jimbo: The woman standing next to me (the eventual winner and a type-1 diabetic who runs with an insulin pump strapped under her arm) sort of mumbles "Let's get going, I can feel my blood sugar rising..." Then Mr. Mission Commander has to break into a little explanation of the scripture he just read and add some commentary. He says something to the effect that God will help the runners run this race.

tREE: So from a rational standpoint we'll look at the delay as an "A" -- an activating (or if you prefer, adverse) event. Christ certainly was smiling on that woman with "the sugar," wouldn't you agree?

Jimbo: I felt like walking forward, grabbing him by his shirt, and shouting "If God wants to help us so much why isn't it 20 degrees cooler and one-fifth the humidity?!" But no, I am too reserved for that sort of public outburst, but one of these days...

tREE: The "B," or belief, is something like "Aw, Christ. It's hot, I'm going to experience discomfort when I run, and I'm going to be filled with hate." Sounds like a clear-cut case of not only awfulizing but fearing the furnace of Hell, which, you'll recall, is a place no one has to visit.

Jimbo: Anyway, I finish the race (winning with a pace slower than my recent 1/2 marathon so maybe God has mixed feelings about atheists: "I'll let you win but with a lousy time") and what am I greeted with at the end? The mewling strains of Mr. Contemporary Christian singer again. Ugh. He has a background music CD and he sings over the top of it. It's lounge lizard meets Billy Graham in Vegas. Disgusting.

tREE: Therefore, the "C," or consequence, is that you could find neither pleasure nor humility in your victory -- only darkness and scorn. And when faced with "disgusting" input from earth people, you can always turn to the pure word of God, such as Ezekiel 23:20:

Jimbo: So after a good head-dousing I wander over to the food tent for some watermelon. I really can't stand this singer and as I'm walking away with some melon I sort of say to no one "Man, this music sucks." A fellow runner who had just finished was walking nearby and said "You ain't kidding." As I'm starting my cool-down I happened to run near the "music tent."

tREE: That's twice in one sentence you mentioned melons. I'm no fan of Freudian symbolism, but do you think perhaps you wanted to lay in sin beside the sugar-stricken women's winner and give her a little "pump" of your own, Praise Jesus?

Jimbo: The lyrics at this point were something like "It's all about you Lord, it's all about you" over and over. Again, I said in passing "If it's all about Him then why are YOU still singing?" It just so happened that at this point he had stopped singing so it's a good bet that he heard me.

tREE: So you chose not to break this self-defeating string of thoughts about these events that made you get mad, yet you somehow thought there would be a happy ending? Are you so self-defeating that you refuse to let Him show you the way out of sh*thood?

Jimbo: During my cool-down I decided not to do this race again.Truly this is an infestation. On the one hand I think it's great that the mission helps the homeless but on the other I feel even worse for these poor people because I know that for some food and shelter they're going to have to suffer through an awful lot of bullsh*t. Talk about bait and switch.

tREE: I recommend you start taking your self-help A-B-C homework a little more seriously. And look into purchasing this, since you wouldn't know the sweet sound of God's unwavering voice if it crawled up your bunghole and died there:

See you next week.

I'd just like to add that seeing all this response from rational non-believers kind of restores my hope for humanity.

You can find this teaching in any major university either in an upper level philosophy course or religious history course or religious studies course. Most of the material is post graduate. I teach college classes and do not proclaim one view as you seem to teach. There are always two sides to a coin. Lets take a basic concept you may be able to handle, "Have you ever study the British view surrounding the Revolutionary War?" This brings a greater understanding to subject whether you agree or disagree with the British in the handling matter with the colonies. That is tragic you do not give a full plate to students to make their own decisions. You still have not shown any knowledge with philosophy, history, or religion.

Flawed logic. Nice try. The races I have been at with a prayer are races sponsored and run by religious organizations. So, if you don't want a prayer, go find the race that is instead organized by the atheist homeless shelter or the atheist food pantry. Call up the vast army of selfless race directors who also run said charitable organizations and ask that nothing be said before the atheist-run race other than 'start.'

Hey truth (a rather arrogant handle, don't you think?) - I'm not sure if that last comment was directed to me, but although in general I agree that there are 2 sides to every story (the British have their take on the Colonies revolt, bin Laden, et al. have their take on U.S. dominance, etc.) do you believe both sides should always be given equal credence? For instance, should the Santa myth be considered as serious as the non-Santa view? If you don't think so, then you can understand why the god-myths don't really stack up against the rational non-theistic perspective.

I was talking with Chuck Darwin. He does not understand a common philosophy term called logos and how each culture has different ones. A culture's logos explains their view of the world in regard to religion and belief of

god(s). If a person can understand logos then both sides of issues come clear as in this case religion.

An atheist would tend to agree with a Roman/Greek logos which is nature shows there is a system. (for example light, dark, and seasons) For the Romans and Greeks the system needs a controller and it was there gods. You see this is many early cultures. With an atheist the difference is nature being the controller and not the gods. Hence we get naturalism.

Then Jewish logos is called God's voice. That God spoke and created different aspects of the universe. This is found in Genesis. The Jewish logos means only humans can acknowledge God and logically process his existence. No other creation can do this on the earth. That God is the controller of the system.

The Christian logos is God as a person. That of course is Jesus Christ. He was a part of creating earth and will be there at end of the earth. As seen in Genesis when it stated, "Let us...." Christians see this as Christ being there in the creation process. That his statement being the Alpha and Omega which means beginning and end is the controller of the system.

The Egpytians actually were close to concept even though their belief was in many gods. You could see a strong belief in the after life. The best example is Pharohs living in modest housing made out of mud and the tombs being made of stone. Then burying the Pharohs with many possessions to live in the after life. An amazing piece of history to study!

This is a general explanation into a complex subject. It is important to understand the words written by early cultures. That brings light to common issues we debate today.

You need to understand what both sides believe on an issue. We can learn that Bin Landen's beliefs came from a Muslim man who study in the United States. (Kansas I believe specifically) He was here in the 1950s or 1960s and could not believe America was a society of God. He thought it was necessary to rid the world of these godless people and societies. The book became the heartbeat of Bin Laden.

Here is the heartbeart of Bin Landen's attack on September 11. Look at the numbers of this verse he shared with the world. It is tragic Muslims have been the most hospitable people I have met in the world.

The Most Profitable Investment

[9:111] GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph.

What's the over/under that "truth" is actually an antheist out to make us letsrun Ned Flanders look....well...like idiots? The verse quoted is non existant in the Koran.

I am looking at this right now in the Koran.

truth behold wrote:

For the Romans and Greeks the system needs a controller and it was there gods.

I have a feeling the "university" at which you teach is actually a degree mill offering pseudo-doctorates like the one Kent Hovind holds.

truth behold wrote:

You see this is many early cultures. With an atheist the difference is nature being the controller and not the gods. Hence we get naturalism.

You have it backward. "Naturalism" is not a belief system from which ideas about observable causes spring; it's one of many terms referring to the result of evidence-gathering, hypothesis formation and testing, and other processes that tell us not who the world outght to be, but how it is, for better or for worse. Referring to nature as a "controller" is just the sort of frivolous but understandable (in terms of long-ago peoples) anthropomorphic slant that led humans to create their various supernatural gods in the first place and has no bearing on how scientists approach the world.

The truth of scientific principles don't rest on human acceptance or understanding; they'll always be there, waiting for folks to catch up after periods marked by benightedness, such as when the high preists were running the show for about 1,000 years. Most importantly, outside of literature or comparative religion classes, the notion that every side deserves an equal chance to express its views regardless of medium is plain dumb. If you want to believe the world is a few millinnia old and that it was created in six days, with all modern species present and accounted for, so be it. Just stay away from America's public school children.

Slapping a label on something in order to take unwarranted shots at it, or inappropriately compare it to something as vacuous as a faith-based belief system, doesn't fool anyone except those who have already bought into one of the many avaiable nonsensical faith-based world views.