Of course in huge numbers of cases (I'd guess the very large majority), you're 'praying' to a 'God' for victory of whatever kind over people who are (or may be) 'praying' to the same 'God' for victory over you...  Just like "Gott Mitt Uns".  Everything I've read says 'prayer' doesn't work.  You?

Pray: To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

Most often these prayers are misguided.  They forget the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln who once pointed out that the issue was not whether God was on "our side" but rather if we were on God's side.

And of course I sincerely doubt that sporting events are high on the Divine list of things to be concerned about.

True enough. and, no, I have no belief in the power of prayer  - though I can see where it would provide a personal reassurance for many people.

But what bothered my about that sign is that in any Christian period, the prayer should be for all of those on both sides who are being harmed by these wars. To do otherwise, if you believe in the power of prayer, is to make the pretty arrogant assumption that ours is God's side, that God has a side in this, and that the God who commanded us not to kill actually thinks killing is okay if it's done by us. It also denies a central Christian message, that we are required  to behave in a Christian manner toward all people, not just the ones on our side.

Greetings!

It could be that at this particular church there are families that have sons or daughters, or other family members, in Afghanistan, and therefore the church family feels that by posting this sign they are supporting these families - or families in their community.

I, too, struggle with the concept that our prayers are directed to a "God is on our side" . . . and would rather see the prayers directed at praying for the leaders for both sides, for wisdom and understanding, for those on both sides who are grieving loss of loved ones, or even just to see the request for pray for PEACE.

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

I like that a lot!  It reminds me of when I saw Bruce Springsteen on VH1 Storytellers talking about, explaining the song "Devil's and Dust."  When he got to the line "I've got God on my side..."  he then asked "Who does not?"

If there is something we can get out prayer, which I think there is, it is that re-positioning of ourselves and taking our own seemingly immediate needs out of the equation to see the larger picture, allowing that peace that passes all understanding to bloom more fully inside us.

I am jumping on the 'pray we are on God's side' bandwagon. I do believe in the power of prayer - even if that power comes from within us, as having just had a thoughtful and quiet time of consideration, it often clears the head - but I also think it should be reserved for things truly important to us. I don't pray that I will win a game, for example, but I will pray that I find a job ... that my father's recovery continues ... and yes on a much grander scale, people like those in Haiti, or our troops, facing true disaster.

graeme, hope you don't mind, but I'm going to lift those words from the church sign out of your post and use them as an illustration for my Sunday sermon, entitled "Love Without Limit" and reflecting on the question "What if God loves everyone?"

We should pray for each side to run out of ammunition.  What if they had a war, and no one brought bullets or missiles?

Rev. Davis - you are most certainly welcome to use it. You will, of course, post a prominent sign giving me full credit for the idea - and with a photo of me. You can use my avatar.

Please apologize to your congregation for my absence and thus inability to sign autographs. However, I will accept self addressed envelopes, and return a genuine autograph for a modest fee.

 Sounds like a deal - but can the church share the fee? 50-50?

Rev Davis and graeme,

Now I know prosperity Christianity exists. 

well,maybe it could be 50/50, but the size and - uh - sprituality of the congregation would have to be factors in any final arrangement.

In almost all of the wars ever fought, both sides prayed for victory.

Even if there was an omnipotent interventionist God, he'd be hard-pressed to decide who is more deserving of victory.

Indeed ^^

It seems God is on the side of whoever is doing the talking.

A french teacher I once taught with served in the Canadian army on the advance through Normandy. They took one town on a sunday afternoon, just after the Germans left. So the Chaplain decided to hold a service for Canadians and the locals.

The sermon was about how God was on our side, and would protect through whatever happened, and to certain victory over the forces of satan.

My friend noticed a local in the congregation who seemed to find the sermon amusing. So he went over to him.

"I guess you're smiling because the war is over for your hometown."

"well, I am happy for that. But I was smiling because the German chaplain gave the same sermon to his troops at the morning mass."

I'm with the local. It's high time we got over this tribal nonsense.

Everything has consequences.  A report from one of the dudes who is trying to empirically  "fight" this whole madness:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-atran/to-beat-al-qaeda-look-to_b_390...

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

At most sporting events when I've had the opportunity to hear a prayer it's more along the lines of good sportsmanlike conduct and no injuries. I'm not certain I've ever heard the person leading the prayer flat out pray for victory although I know I've heard "help our boys (or girls) do their best and try their hardest.

As for the military thing I'm on board for that. I think with Afghanistan and the war on terror in general that the west has a strong moral validity over the taliban, Al Queda, etc. Even in a case like the Iraq war where I didn't support it politically I was never hesitant to pray that our troops will come home safe. They are mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends, neighbors, family and loved ones of all sorts and I want them to come home safe and sound. I don't have to agree with the politics of the war to support the troops. Any disagreement I have I'll take up with the politicians who made the decision to start or continue the war. The people wearing a uniform will never catch any flak from me.

there;s no reason why they should catch any flak from you. of course. But why should a half million of so children ini Iraq who died be forgotten? what about the five million refugees? I'm not suggesting you shouldn't pray for jsoldiers. I'm suggesting you shouldn't JUST pray for them.

I have more trouble with the idea that the war in Afghanistan is morally justified. What? you seriously think we're there to help them there women folk? Well,you don't help them by blowing them up and starving them by the thousands. To bring democracy? What we've put in is a corrupt drug pusher who stole the election, and has now significant power. And who tortures.

Because  the Taliban was in league with Al Quaeda? Nobody has ever produced any evidence it was. Chrck. there is none.And if it were,that would scarcely make it morally just to murder Afghan civilians by the thousand. By the, much of the planning of 9/!! was done in Britain and Paris. So when do we carry out a morally justifiable invasion of those two countries?

The bombers were all Sauidis. Amazingly, there has been no retaliation against that country.

As for Al Quaeda, the idea you can bomb it into submission is absurd. The reason it exists is because of resentment of centuries of western treatment of moslem countries. Killing more moslems and invading more of their countries won't change that.

What other countries do within their own borders is their own business. That, not bombing, is how freedom starts.

By the way, at Nremburg, the rule laid down that one country could not attack another country excpect in response to oan attack. We hanged German leaders for breaking that rule

For the last fifty years and more, the US has publicly stated it will not obey that rule. The US is now takiing up where Hitler left off.

I think maybe praying for our side began in the dark ages when Lady Godiva announced she was about to ride naked, side saddle, down the street through Coventry. 

Personally I'm praying that the Canadians will trounce the Koreans in the 2010 Olympic Games.

Just kidding.

Sort of.

Jesus said Love your enemies and bless those who curse you. The interpretation of this is not that God supports one side or the other. No longer is war fought on the battlefield where only soldiers are present. No we drop bombs on cities and innocent men, women and children are terrorized, victimized and killed. And we are just as guilty as the Taliban who blow themselves up in the marketplace. Killing another human being is murder, and the taking of innocent lives is not something I believe God supports. Instead we should pray for understanding and tolerance. We should pray that one day our weapons and nukes will be displayed in museums like we remember slavery and the holocaust. But as smart as we think we are, we never seem to learn. No Love your enemies means something else, but only followers of Christ are actually called to do that.

Don't think so - unless it's only for your "Christian" enemies (often there's lots of those, of course).  We who 'believeth not' don't even get to live ('course he was unsurpizingly wrong there - lol) much less have everlasting life and we get God's wrath even though 'God' could allow us to believe in a femtosecond - sounds to me like he couldn't give a rat's hinterteil about us*:    "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

*Actually it's way worse than just not caring, huh?  He and daddy just don't like us and want us treated belligerently, no?

Sorry Brett - you lost me - I have no idea what you said

The taliban regime is the most brutally misogynistic on the planet. Any change will be for the better. In addition to bombs we are bringing schools and hospitals. It's messy but I do expect the end result to be an improvement.

If they are mjsogynistic, tht at does not give us the right to kill them.And there are worse societies. Anyway, at Nuremberb, we hanged Naziis for invading a country that did not first invade them.

As to rebuilding, it doesn't sound to me that you bomb in order to rebuild.

As for barbarity, a very large proportion of the American force is mercentaries with an astonishing record for brutality. Some are now under charge for raiding a school, pulling out children, and shooting them.

Here is a war which it has cost a broke US over three hundred billion so far.Are you  seriously suggesting Bush invaded out of concern for the womenfolk?

Bush had multiple agendas, helping women MIGHT have slipped into the top ten but I doubt it and Blackwater (now XE) was atrocious. Even so we are doing some good there amidst the carnage and I expect in the end Afghanistan will be better off than it was to start with. Also the Nazis were hanged for crimes against humanity, for murdering millions of people, and doing so because of their religion, their skin color, their sexual orientation, etc. They were not hanged just for "invading".  Saying that is like saying when someone goes to the mall and kills people in cold blood you saying they should not have discharged a firearm in a public place, which would be on the list of charges, but nowhere near the top.

They were hanged for invading when  not in reponse to an invasion. The judges were quiet explicit about that.

I see not the slightest reason to think Afghanistan will be better off. Our side has simply chosen a war lord to be be persident. that's  the way it's always been. He and other war lords control the drug trade,and operate on corrupion. That's the way it's always been.

You do not invade and bomb a country to improve it.

And for those thousands of dead (nobody has bothered to get an accurate count), it won't matter if things improve.

Graeme  I really wanted to agree with you. I do  like what you said about praying for all. I agree with this. But Germany didn't atack canada or usa.

once one side invades another, others can join in to fight the attacker,just a passerby who sees someone attack another person can legally go to the other's help.

Actually, Germany did attack and sink American ships. But,though FDR wanted a war very much for his own reasons, most Americans didn't.  But Pearl Harbour couldn't be ignored.

graeme

Off topic slightly perhaps but what do you see for the future in Afghan?  I see nothing different than the way it always was meaning the troops will eventually pull out  and Afghan. goes back to square one. Its like if there were thousands  of Taliban who arrived here and  were seeking to force us to accept their beliefs, just totally wrong!  I read that the U.S. has brought them prostitutes to market their wares openly in town. That's progress.....lol....

What I was trying to get at is that it's my understanding that your:  "Jesus said Love your enemies and bless those who curse you" only applies to Christians and their Christian enemies.  That is, the "love" that was referred to didn't mean Christians had to love say, atheist enemies.  And as per the underlined quote, Jesus didn't even want those who did not believe in him to live, much less be loved.

Bretta,  what you are claiming must mean that god picks a side in war. You're not the first to claim that. But I Jesus meant to say love only christian enemies he would have said  so in plain languages. Besides, it is not up to you to decided who gets the wratch of god.

Anyway, read the story of the samaritan. That seems to clearly indicaten love is not simply within a religion.

Beware if picking and choosing which bits you want to believe. You will always find a piece that seems to suggest your are free to do un Christian things. Look for the spirit of Jesus' teaching. Remember, too, that Christians have always fought each other. So which side do you pray for?

As for the future, I see Afghanistan and Haiti changing very little. There is no democracy in Afghanistan. There is massive corruption on all sides, and a reliance on producing drugs. That won't change.

Haiti is poor becaause for 200 years the western world has wanted it poor. Cheap labout, easy access to farm products for American markets, cheap clothes produced in sweatshops at three dollars a day. That isn't goiong to change.

As for the question

LOL...  Interpret what "I must mean" however you wish - even if wrong, but indeed that's not at all what I do mean (of course, as I suspect even you know).

I always find it fascinating the number of times this comes up, and even more so the number of times the reverse comes up - that whats is written in plain language in the Bible can't be taken as it would be by using plain language syntax.  So what does "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life" mean, please?

Of course it is - as discussion points!   If not people like you and me; who, then?  I mean, if 'God' takes issue with me, then 'God' can respectfully request I do otherwise...  but I suspect we both know that that ain't gonna happen, eh?

Well, the Samaritan only one example and seems to conflict with the passage I noted, so looking further, I found a Christian site that seems to completely agree, suggesting people of all nations will be accepted "provided that they repent and obey Him". 

Ref: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000510.htm

Based on all the above, I humbly submit that this (very, very, very old) warning applies to you at least as much as to me.

no. it doesn't. You actually went outside the bible for you last bit of evidence. Of course, there are groups that agree with what you. You will find groups of any sort. That,s not evidence of anything.

Besides, if you insist on picking that part of the Bible, I can tell you there are rabbis in Israel who read the scriptures to mean murder is quite acceptable, so long as it is the murder of non-Jews. that would include you.

Have you explained your rights to your unitarian and atheist neighbours?

graeme

Nice dodge.  Let's try again (a 4th time?):  "So what does "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life" mean, please?"

That has squat to do with my rights (and I'd guess we all know this, plus our rights), so, no.

Christians are called to love one and all. That's what God does. Why should we do any less?

What I was trying to get at is that it's my understanding that your:  "Jesus said Love your enemies and bless those who curse you" only applies to Christians and their Christian enemies.  That is, the "love" that was referred to didn't mean Christians had to love say, atheist enemies.  And as per the underlined quote, Jesus didn't even want those who did not believe in him to live, much less be loved.

BRETTA IF THREE IS  NO GOD YOUR OK. But there is you make your own choice. Jesus dose want you to live thats why he died

That promise was fullfiled on third day . When  God rose him up.

Here is a little more context for the "love your enemies" verse that is being discussed.

Hi Brett,

Some background material for your discussion with Graeme.

A more modern translation and some more context (as at this link) might be helpful.

John chapter 3, especially the meeting with Nicodemus, is both very famous and quite controversial, with different interpretations, even among Christians.

"Born again". "Born of the Spirit". "Eternal life". However you decide to interpret phrases like these, it does seem fair to assume that they refer to something different from mere physical existence. Perhaps even something more than that?

RAN

   :Bretta:  whatever your reading of that - shall not see life is open to many interpretations. But the interpretations don't matter. The most you can take from that is that God's wrath will be involved. There is nothing in there that gives you the right to hate or attack. Please keep some distinction between which is you and which is God.

It doesn't seem to matter much if we're fundamentalist, progressive - or somewhere in between, but somehow God ends up being just like us.

Or am I being overly cynical??

That does happen.

God is, I think, in all of us - and that might explain the transition to believing God is just like us. But it really does not follow so simply as that.

Ha!  Simply astounding!  I'll reply to the rest shortly, but this one's just too amazingly Christian-sounding to wait and I have time for a quick response, so now that I've managed to pick myself up after ROTFLMAO, I've gotta ask, Graeme...  How the hell can you conceivably see "hate", or what can possibly be construed as an "attack", when I ask Christians for an interpretation of Christian scripture, please?

I can't resist feeding this troll, sorry.

Airclean, first, if "THREE IS NO GOD", then "YOUR" in trouble, because that means that the Trinity you worship is false.

But if we're just going on Pascal's Wager, then what happens if there's a god who punishes believers and rewards unbelievers?  Oh, snap!

bretta - you can't see hate - and I neve said you could. You can see manifestations of it, of course.

As to a definition of attack, If some one deliberately knifes you, then it that is not an attack, I don't know the meanings of words. Generally. dictionaries will define it an a act to harm physically, defame or degrade a person. We can get more detailed. Do you have a dictionary?