Cyde Weys wrote:

Jim Spaza wrote:

Without knowing the specifics of a person's life and having walked a
mile in their shoes, I would be extremely hesistant to comment on why
any one person had not received a response to their prayer.

I can offer general ideas. These are based on Biblical accounts where
people prayed to God, to one extent or the other, and God did or did
not respond.

Please know that this list is not exhaustive or conclusive:

1) God did respond, but the person honestly didn't recognize the
response as coming from God.

People tend to look for some great supernatural event which rarely
happens. God tends to use every day situations and activities through
which to respond. Look for coincidences and situations working out for
seemingly no reason.

2) God has not responded yet, but the person has his/her own timetable
that they expect God to keep.

3) God will not respond because the person wasn't sincere in their
request. Drinking a beer while watching a football game is not the
time to ask God to reveal Himself to make you a believer. If God
really is the absolute Supreme Being of the universe, treat Him as
such.

4) God did respond, but the person refuses to believe that it was God.

You're missing the most obvious one, although your faith blinds you to
it ..

5) God did not respond because God does not exist.

Actually, I once considered this "obvious" answer. I then came to the
logical conclusion that there is, in fact, has to be a Supreme Being.

All of my faith thus stems from this conclusion.

Faith doesn't blind
me. However, it is a absolute unchanging conclusion that there can't
be a God which blinds some skeptics. Like the Bible says, there are
some who will adamantly refuse to believe even if someone were to rise
from the dead right in front of them.

Cyde Weys wrote:

5) God did not respond because God does not exist.

Actually, I once considered this "obvious" answer. I then came to the
logical conclusion that there is, in fact, has to be a Supreme Being.

All of my faith thus stems from this conclusion. Faith doesn't blind
me. However, it is a absolute unchanging conclusion that there can't
be a God which blinds some skeptics. Like the Bible says, there are
some who will adamantly refuse to believe even if someone were to rise
from the dead right in front of them.

Eric Rowley wrote:

From: "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com>:

<snip>

JS> If you read the Bible, you'll see how God wants humans to
JS> strive to know Him. Please don't wait for God to hand you the
JS> secrets of the Bible and the natural universe on a silver
JS> platter while you sit in your flourescent-lit cubicle.
JS> Sometimes, He will. Most of the time, knowing God demands an
JS> adventurous heart which goes out into the world, taking
JS> physical and intellectual risks with no safety net.

JS> Leave the safety, security, and familiarity of your scientific
JS> cubicle and see the great amount of wisdom which God has
JS> prepared for you. All it takes is a little faith.

Great!

As soon as you tell me how to have even a little faith
in something I don't believe in I'll get started.

If it's that easy to turn on and off maybe you could have
a little faith in Zeus, just for a minute or two, as a little
demonstration?

Eric

Faith, in and of itself, is meaningless unless it is anchored to
something that really exists.

If you are really open-minded about the possibility of God's existence
as described in the Bible, then I'll be happy to tell you how to have
just "a little faith" to get started.

Let's start with...

"Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty
things, which thou knowest not." - Jeremiah 33:3

If you treat this as a flippant, irrelevant attempt while you're
drinking your coffee and reading the newspaper in the morning, then
nothing will ever happen. If the Bible is even somewhat accurate, then
God knows what you really desire and are thinking even right now.

But, if you are in any way serious...if you are really open to God's
existence and would consider changing your beliefs if God does
respond...then pray this prayer or something similar:

"God, I don't know if you exist. But, if you do, then let me know
somehow. I am open to changing my mind about you. If you do exist,
then I want to know who you are and maybe even start obeying you. Help
me and have mercy on me. In the Name of Your Son, Jesus. Amen."

Be ready and on the lookout for God responding. It may be through
visions, dreams, weird circumstances, coincidences, or maybe an angel
appearing to you. And you may have to wait a few days. Remember that
God has His own timetable for such things.

Herb Huston wrote:

In article <1121452989.315626.118260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
}Herb Huston wrote:
}> In article <1121366290.657037.123800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
}> Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
}> }Well, some of the assertions made above would be incompatible with
}> }sections of the Bible. And if those sections of the Bible are proven
}> }false, then the entire Biblical account and its divine inspiration
}> }aspect is then called into question.
}>
}> Do leporids really redigest their food in the manner described in Leviticus
}> 11:6?
}
}Thanks for making me Google the definition of "leporids". :-)
}
}This is from one of my previous posts in a different forum on this
}subject.
}
}Today, animals that "chew their cud" are called ruminants. They almost
}immediately swallow food when first eaten into a special stomach where
}the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again,
}and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include
}cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and
}rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
}
}However, "'alah", the Hebrew phrase for 'chew the cud', literally means
}to go up, ascend, or climb. In this context, it means to 'raise up
}what has been swallowed'.
}
}Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that
}Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at
}first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise
}refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and
}does indeed 'raise up what has been swallowed'. The food goes right
}through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping.
}These are re-eaten and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already
}been partly digested.

Refection is not a raising up of what has been swallowed. As you point
out above, the food passes through the rabbit.

}It is not an error of Scripture that 'chewing the cud' now has a more
}restrictive meaning than it did in Moses' day.

The meaning hasn't changed. It was rumination then, just as it is now.

Sure, except the author at the time didn't understand the biomechanics
of the digestion process, so when God explained things to him, He did
so in a manner befitting the author's technical knowledge. God has a
time and place for all knowledge to be discovered by humanity.

Are there really avian chiropterans as stated in Leviticus 11:13-19?

I'll copy what I wrote previously concerning this same question:

Did the Bible really place a bat into the fowl family?

No, not in the original sense. This is one of the few translational
errors in the King James version of the Bible. The Hebrew word in use
is "owph", meaning to cover (with wings) or to fly. Fowls, at that
time, were considered more than what we do today.

Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of
the Old Testament. Neither was the scientific definition of "bird". At
that time, classification of animals and other living things was made
based on form or function, not some advanced scientific classification
system using genetics.

The fact that some translators were in error, science had not
classified things yet, and skeptics today don't do a word study of
Hebrew to test and verify all lead to such questions.