₦airaland Forum

thehomer:
I wasn't aware that he believed in any particular God. Your post seemed to indicate otherwise. So which God was it?

Your ignorance (or lack of awareness) is your own problem, not mine; what a wise person would do in those circumstances would be to go and inform himself. You could start by asking your fellow evangelical atheists here; one of them has been going on about which god Flew believed and which he didn't.

thehomer:
If you weren't making any argument, then what was the point of declaring Anthony Flew and attaching to him the title of "atheist champion of all time"? It seems yet again that some are unable to understand what they post.

If you don't get my point, that is your problem, not mine; I can't continue giving all these comprehension lessons!

thehomer:
It seems you don't know what sophistry is because it is what you do when you keep running from clearly identifying what you're referring to in these sorts of discussions.

OK

By the way, I have just discovered where the other bits (not in The Telegraph) of the attempted rebuttal comes from. This piece playing on Flew's name titled "One Flew Over The cuckoo's Nest" from  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html

Here goes:

. . . . atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:

    "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3

In Flew�s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, ", it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big slam cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.  {Edit: this is the bit that was used in the attempted rebuttal}

For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. . . . 

Read Antony Flew's new book, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Again, did I say something wrong (especially from the perspective of the evangelical atheists)?

I had initially let this go deliberately as, even now still in the final analysis, it was not worthwhile responding to the attempt at rebutting what I said about Antony Flew.

But just to demonstrate it, I will quote from the same Telegraph Obituary that was the source for the attempted rebuttal.

When Flew revealed that he had come to the conclusion that there might be a God after all, it came as a shock to his fellow atheists, who had long regarded him as one of their foremost champions. Worse, he seemed to have deserted Plato for Aristotle, since it was two of Aquinas's famous five proofs for the existence of God – the arguments from design and for a prime mover – that had apparently clinched the matter.

After months of soul-searching, Flew concluded that research into DNA had "shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved". Moreover, though he accepted Darwinian evolution, he felt that it could not explain the beginnings of life. "I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature," he said.

Flew went on to make a video of his conversion entitled Has Science Discovered God? and seemed to want to atone for past errors: "As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done," he said.

Did I say something wrong (i.e. from the perspective of the evangelical atheists)?   

OK getting back on track and stopping the cheats . . .

Getting back to cliches -- I can't believe "traveling mercies" {edit: or "journey mercies"} hasn't been mentioned yet. Allow me to be the first to nominate it!

And one more . . .

. . . . freethinkers, who, in my judgment, are not to be reformed by arguments offered to prove the truth of the Christian religion, because reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired: for in the course of things, men always grow vicious before they become unbelievers; but if you would once convince the town or country profligate, by topics drawn from the view of their own quiet, reputation, health, and advantage, their infidelity would soon drop off: This I confess is no easy task, because it is almost in a literal sense, to fight with beasts.

One more cheat from the Jonathan Swift Letter

I do not find that you are anywhere directed in the canons or articles, to attempt explaining the mysteries of the Christian religion. And indeed since Providence intended there should be mysteries, I do not see how it can be agreeable to piety, orthodoxy or good sense, to go about such a work. For, to me there seems to be a manifest dilemma in the case if you explain them, they are mysteries no longer, if you fail, you have laboured to no purpose. What I should think most reasonable and safe for you to do upon this occasion is, upon solemn days to deliver the doctrine as the Church holds it, and confirm it by Scripture. For my part, having considered the matter impartially, I can see no great reason which those gentlemen you call the freethinkers can have for their clamour against religious mysteries, since it is plain, they were not invented by the clergy, to whom they bring no profit, nor acquire any honour. For every clergyman is ready either to tell us the utmost he knows, or to confess that he does not understand them; neither is it strange that there should be mysteries in divinity as well as in the commonest operations of nature.

And here I am at a loss what to say upon the frequent custom of preaching against atheism, deism, freethinking, and the like, as young divines are particularly fond of doing especially when they exercise their talent in churches frequented by persons of quality, which as it is but an ill compliment to the audience; so I am under some doubt whether it answers the end.

Because persons under those imputations are generally no great frequenters of churches, and so the congregation is but little edified for the sake of three or four fools who are past grace. Neither do I think it any part of prudence to perplex the minds of well-disposed people with doubts, which probably would never have otherwise come into their heads. But I am of opinion, and dare be positive in it, that not one in an hundred of those who pretend to be freethinkers, are really so in their hearts. For there is one observation which I never knew to fail, and I desire you will examine it in the course of your life, that no gentleman of a liberal education, and regular in his morals, did ever profess himself a freethinker . . . .

Here I am about to cheat slightly as this next extract is not from the OP article itself but from the Jonathan Swift Letter referred to; secondly, it is not strictly speaking about cliches but I do not want to start another thread for this small point or revive an old one that touched on the same issue.

From here: http://www.online-literature.com/swift/religion-church-vol-one/7/

Some gentlemen abounding in their university erudition, are apt to fill their sermons {edit: or discussions} with philosophical terms and notions of the metaphysical or abstracted kind, which generally have one advantage, to be equally understood by the wise, the vulgar, and the preacher himself. I have been better entertained, and more informed by a chapter in the "Pilgrim's Progress," than by a long discourse upon the will and the intellect, and simple or complex ideas. Others again, are fond of dilating on matter and motion, talk of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, of theories, and phenomena, directly against the advice of St Paul, who yet appears to have been conversant enough in those kinds of studies.

I especially like category #1 (add "the Lord laid it on my heart" to the list), and the idea of getting rid of the big heart vs. mind distinction. I feel as if many modern American Christians think that intellectualism has no real place in Christianity, God doesn't speak to anybody through logic, and trying to think your way through things is always an example of "leaning on your own understanding." It's probably a reaction against the tendency of atheists and academic liberals to claim that they have a corner on intelligence and critical thinking, but it's still wrong. This is a personal sore spot for me because I went through a period of honest intellectual doubt when I was a teenager. My parents came down hard on me for it; they seemed to think that I could just snap my fingers and believe if I wanted to, and therefore I must be deliberately rejecting Christianity. My mom even said that I had "such a hard heart" at one point, when she thought I wasn't listening. Thanks to the doubts, I was already going through the worst period of my life, and having my parents treat me like a rebellious heathen made it even more difficult. I was so scared of getting the same reaction from other Christians that I didn't seek support or comfort from anybody, and dealt with the problem (which went on for years) in secret.

Hmmmmmmm . . . .

From here: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2011/07/the_worst_ever_christian_clich.html

Samples:

The trouble with prefabricated words is that they don’t require or encourage much thinking. Yes, clichés contain truth; that’s why they are used so much. But familiarity can turn even truthful words into vain repetitions.

Church-based clichés are nothing new. In 1719, satirist Jonathan Swift warned in “A Letter to a Young Clergyman Lately Entered Into Holy Orders,” against “the folly of using old threadbare phrases.”

So I did some brainstorming with many Her.meneutics writers to find some of the worst clichés in vogue among Christians. (In fairness, the cliché problem isn’t limited to Christians.) The terms here are my personal peeves. If you happen to be fond of any of them, please know I’m not judging you — just your vocabulary, and mine.

-testimony. This one is troubling when it is =used singularly, suggesting that the Christian life is marked by only one testimony when, in fact, every day provides believers with unlimited opportunities for more testimonies.

-Christ-follower. A problematic trend in recent years is calling oneself this rather than a Christian. I understand the embarrassment the label Christian can cause when it aligns one with others who are not as smart, savvy, or theologically and politically progressive as oneself. (Yes, that was sarcasm, another language altogether). But the term Christ-follower is vague enough to apply to any number of good-hearted folks who admire the teachings of the historical Jesus but don’t ascribe to the creeds that martyrs like Stephen, Polycarp, Joan of Arc, Tyndale, Cranmer, and Bonhoeffer lived and died for. Keeping this great cloud of witnesses — joined by the likes of Luther, Calvin, Wilberforce, and Mother Teresa — in mind can help one reconsider the privilege and honor it is to bear the name Christian.

"Christ-Follower" instead of "Christian" gets on my last nerve. You're not cute, you're not clever, and you're not helping yourself. You're trying to distance yourself from other believers -- something snobs do.

"It's not a Religion, it's a Relationship" is also inane. It's both, and trying to make it sound cool isn't going to change anyone's mind. Plus, it's a lie -- Christianity is a religion, and pretending otherwise isn't going to change it.

"Spirit-Filled Person" Here's the thing: If they're a Christian, they're "Spirit Filled." If you're a church, you're "Spirit-Filled." You may not act like it, but you are. Stop trying to make a caste system for Christians.

Arrrivederci

^^^ Look when you can identify and define the god/s that you want to disprove, let's talk; otherwise all I'm getting from you is, as I said, the typical evangelical atheist codswallop which, invariably, is interminably boring.

PS At least, I have helped you to work on your comprehension a bit --- unless you still haven't worked out what I said was "obvious".

Idehn:
. . . Now it is you he needs reading comprehension. YOU entered this discussion by asserting that atheist are trying to "disprove" this thing you call God just as sweetnecta did below.

Another example of poor comprehension or deceit and lies. People of proper comprehension and honesty can follow my posts from the very first one and see your statement for the lie it is. 

Idehn:
I asked YOU to clarify what it IS you have now repeatedly asserted atheist are trying disprove. Are you talking about gravity like it seems sweetnecta was because I am certainly not trying to disprove gravity. If God=gravity then God exist in so far as gravity does.

When you can identify and define what it is you are trying to disprove, go ahead and disprove it. 

Idehn:
If you cannot say what God is then stop telling(making the observation LOL) that people are out to disprove the thing you are calling God. Once again no one knows what you are even talking about and you refuse/unable to tell anybody. Once again, you have no business telling people what is "obvious"  when you refer to God.

Yet another instance of poor comprehension or deceit; anyway, if you cannot define the god/s that you are trying to disprove then stop wasting people's time! 

PS Have you now read that post mentioning "obvious" and did you work out what was "obvious"? How many readings did it take -- ten as I suggested?

nuella2:
When you give its a principle, it must multiply. He that recieve a prophet receives a reward, if a prophet have nothing to give God will not say so. A prophet is anointed to bless. Their words turn circumstances around.

Who helped who?

The woman could have said no to God's command, but she believed God and obeyed. The prophet spoke words of blessing he could have kept quiet therefore they both are people of faith, they responded to the voice of God. Even though what she recieved was multiplied the prophet could have missed a meal maybe if the woman held back her meal, God would have looked for another alternative.

nuella2:
^^^
Is the woman that would have died if she didnt obey God would have fed the prophet another way but the word help means assistance, in this story they were were of assistance to each other. She could have said, i will eat my last meal and die. It took faith to believe God like that, maybe the op should change to title. Like who was greater btw the of them, but if the word is help/assistance them assist each other o. I am sure he said thank you to her after eating the meal.

nuella2

Do you see now why it is not a good idea to say or suggest that we should not obey God with that statement by Oyakhilome that nowhere in the New Testament are we told to obey God? In particular as the statement is not true, indeed it is a big lie as we demonstrated with several passages contradicting it in the New Testament? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-704762.0.html

Idehn:
What are you talking about now? I was responding to you saying that it is "childish sophistry" to ask for some ontology for God.  You are the one who cannot be bothered to tell people what you are even talking about. Once again, if you are incapable of even telling people what you are talking about, then you have no business telling people what is "obvious" on the matter of "God".

It is your problem not mine; you are the one who do not know the god you want to disprove. Your task is to ascertain that god or his "ontology" (very big word ) and then disprove the god. If you find people who have time to provide what you want, bully for you; asking me to do so will be wasting your time to eternity.

By the way it does not make you look good to project your ignorance onto others. 

Idehn:
Please, show me where I announced that I do not believe in God and I want to "disprove" it. Go ahead. Take all the time you need.

I don't need much time, mate; here you go!

Idehn:
[quote author=Enigma link=topic=715030.msg8756785#msg8756785 date=1311195527]This is one thing that many atheists do not want to face; instead they try to play the sleight of hand that the burden of proof is on the theist/deist ---- yeah right, tell it to the birds! 

Can someone here actually define what it is they want disproved? I am tired of being asked to provide evidence against something that does not even have a clear, coherent, and meaningful ontology. It is almost as if you made up a word, blaormoga, and have started asking other people to provide evidence that it does not exist.[/quote]^Here you quote me as asking for what I want disproved --- with the implicit suggestion that if I provide the what (i.e. definition of "god", you can disprove it. Meanwhile, I never did ask you to believe/disbelieve, prove/disprove anything. All I did was make an observation that atheists contend/pretend that the burden of proof is on the theist/deist.

Idehn:
I do not think you comprehend what I am saying. I have no idea what you mean when you say God. I have no opinion on the existence/non-existence of the thing God you are referring to. Until you give a definition of what God is I will continue to do so. I have no interest whatsoever in defining what God is for you. Where have I said/implied otherwise. There is nothing "obvious" about the definition of what you are referring to as God beyond the fact that no one knows what you are talking about including you it seems.

Nah, you do not comprehend; please try harder! I do not care in the least whether or not you have an idea of the god that anyone is talking about. And again you show your poor comprehension with this reference to "obvious"; can you not do the simple task of going back to read the post in which I used the word "obvious" to see what it referred to? Alright I suppose I'd better help you with a clue: "obvious" was not referring to god or the existence of god --- go back and read it again --- maybe ten times will be sufficient?

Idehn:
Please acquire  comprehension of epistemology. I suggest you start with Ontology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology#Some_fundamental_questions since from your comment you seem to have difficulty understanding the importance of plain definitions.

All these big big words! "Ontology", "epistemology" --- any other "-ologies" that you know? Anyway, if you have no difficulty "understanding the importance of plain definitions", you will provide the definition/s of the god/s that you want to disprove. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Idehn:
Again if you have no idea what you are talking about Enigma, then please withhold your pretense of knowledge.

If you think I have no idea, then that is fine. One thing that I (and even you) have demonstrated is that you have no idea at all of what you are talking about other than the usual evangelical atheist codswallop. You will only be able to make an impression if you can define the god/s that you do not believe and want to disprove.

Have I ever talked to you about anything? Have I ever asked you to believe anything? And, even now, am I asking you to believe anything?

You come announcing you don't believe something and want to "disprove" it --- yet you do not even know what that something is! Wunderbar!

Who is the ignorant one then?



PS You need to demonstrate better comprehension and to go back and read my post from which you are picking the word "obvious" and ascertain what I referred to as "obvious"!

Very funny title! 

Indeed, I agree that pastor Chris is the real adversary of many of the people ("your" to whom this is addressed i.e. his followers! 

^^^ Just like you are ignorant and have no clue about what you disbelieve and are trying to disprove? Cool! 

Simple answer ---- brainwashing and manipulation by these "pastors" coupled with ignorance, desire and/or greed of the sheeple!

You have some of the "pastors" on this very forum fraudulently and/or idiotically peddling all sorts of falsehood aimed at elevating "pastors" and manipulating the sheeple into giving money etc to them and holding the miscreants in esteem. Here is an example from another thread:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-707140.0.html#msg8759220

When God says he has commanded the widow, that doesn't mean she heard any voice. It was a prophetic utterance just like saying "I have ordained her" to feed you. But the woman physically was broke. She was about to die. But the blessing lies with the manor God. A man of God carries anointing to prosper. She had to connect to the anointing by ministring to him with the food. If she had not done that , she would have died even though she had been ordained to feed him. She must connect to "the prophets reward"  and that's what he made her do.

and another:

The anointed man carries the blessing. When you give him, you position yourself to recieve period.

Suggesting that the "pastor" is the "anointed" man and must be given money etc for the sheeple to be blessed. Whereas the Bible teaches that every Christian is anointed and blessed!

When people constantly hear fraudulent things like these from "pastors" that they trust and hold in esteem, if they fail to engage their brains properly exactly as millions fail to do, it is not then surprising that they talk of "the God of Adeboye/Oyedepo/Oyakhilome" etc It is only sad and extremely pitiful!

thehomer:
Which God did Anthony Flew believe in?

Why don't you answer the question yourself - and prove to all how informed and smart you really are? 

thehomer:
Another thing to note here is citing Anthony Flew here is simply an argument from authority. You actually need to present the argument you're making rather than just name dropping.

This is either deceit or poor comprehension. Read my post again and see if I was trying to make any argument or simply pointing out a matter of fact and records. 

Breeze5000:
. . .  A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes, Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . .

Oh ho! Instead many of them, especially the evangelical atheists, would (a) rather play the sleight of hand that only the theists/deists have a burden of proof and/or (b) engage in childish sophistry asking the theist/deist to "define" "god" ---- pretending not, or too ignorant, to see the obvious ---- i.e. they can simply "define" or explain which "god" they are arguing does not exist or themselves simply "define" what a "god" is.

And they expect sensible people to engage them in debate --- and can't see why most sensible people just ignore them to their interminably boring rantings?

Cool!   

FreeIndeed:
. . .  Why pay to listen to lies, errors, and teachings that even the leaders aren't obeying? Men would rather just stay home and watch a game on TV for free. No deception and religious pimpery is involved.

Super! The so-called "pastors" often quote "it is more blessed to give than to receive". But these frauds do not practise it, otherwise they should be giving, giving, giving, and giving  to members of their congregation and other needy people.

Second, in addition to not following the passage, the fraudulent pastors make things worse by using the passage to manipulate and brainwash the congregation because they use it to persuade the congregation to always be giving to the "pastor"; so, with these frauds, it is one way traffic giving ---- from congregation to pastor.

Alufa n'sanra, ijọ n'ru!

Sweetnecta:
. . . . can you provide a clear incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist . . .

This is one thing that many atheists do not want to face; instead they try to play the sleight of hand that the burden of proof is on the theist/deist ---- yeah right, tell it to the birds!

Joagbaje:
It is obvious ,the prophet helped the woman. God could have taken care of him without her as he had done before. She was the one who needed a miracle . The person who gives positions himself or herself for grace.


Acts 20:35
, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

If God could have taken care of him without her, could He also not have taken care of her without him?

Joagbaje:
Now 1 John 4:17 says “…as He is, so are we in this world.”

That means the life, the glory and the name He now has belongs to us. This is the reason the Apostle Paul admonished us in Colossians 3:17 to do all things in the Name of Jesus. So today, we live in the Name of Jesus. When we pray to God, we do in the Name of Jesus. And when you live your life in the Name of Jesus; no sickness or disease can take a hold of your body; and no demon can destroy your life. This is the victory of Christianity!

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=717364.msg8756162#msg8756162 date=1311190715]Sigh [/quote]^^^ Well, what do you expect? It is the shallow and fraudulent theology of the prosperity "gospel" after all!

Uyi Iredia:
*1 >>> objective in what sense ? even such 'objectivity' is necessarily based on arbitrary axioms that are generally agreed upon. think basic universal rights

*2 >>> I do not think you have researched on what ID proponents have to say. Here are some links for you to go through:

* Evolution, The Untold Story
* If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists
* TalkOrigins’ Misrepresentations of Werner Gitt and Information Theory

I repeat below basically what I said in another related thread.

In broad terms, {it was the kind of argument in that second link} that convinced one of the atheists' champions of all time, i.e. Antony Flew, to deism and belief in God eventually. When you hear atheists talk of the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in argument, they are ultimately parroting (OK, borrowing from) Antony Flew. At least Antony Flew had the integrity to "follow wherever the evidence leads" as he put it.

Funny enough, some atheists found  the earthquake of Flew's conversion to atheism Deism so unbearable that they try to say Flew did not really renounce atheism, he had mentally weakened at the time etc etc ---- na so! 

^^^ In broad terms, it is the kind of thing that convinced one of the atheists' champions of all time, i.e. Antony Flew, to deism and belief in God eventually. When you hear atheists talk of the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in argument, they are ultimately parrotting (OK, borrowing from) Antony Flew. At least Antony Flew had the integrity to "follow wherever the evidence leads" as he put it.

(Funny enough, some atheists found  the earthquake of Flew's conversion to atheism Deism so unbearable that they try to say Flew did not really renounce atheism, he had mentally weakened at the time etc etc) ---- na so! 

^^^ Nice poem! 

@Topic

Walking on water is a well known magic trick. It has been done by even the Christian magician Andre Kole previously mentioned here  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-415785.0.html#msg5724995

See http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andre+kole&aq=f and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Kole

valacious:
Mum passed onto glory this morning. Thank u all.

May the faithful departed rest in peace and rise in glory. May you and the rest of the family find comfort amidst the sorrow.

Psalm 30:5

. . . Weeping may endure for a night, But joy comes in the morning.

Joagbaje:
A pastor is a spiritual guide. He can advise and counsel

Zodiac61:
[quote author=Joagbaje link=topic=713671.msg8730512#msg8730512 date=1310847639]A pastor is a spiritual guide. He can advise and counsel

This is a joke, isn't it?
Advise what
Counsel What[/quote]He too is a "pastor"; so you can bet he doesn't know what he is talking about half of the time ---- except for keeping his "clients" coming back through manipulation.

Pastor AIO:
. .
Are you saying that the analysts at S&P and Moody's know little about economics.  They are the one's doing the ratings. . .

nlMediator:
. . .  Moody and S&P are talking of downgrade because the stalemate may lead to a default. They all know the US' default would not because of struggle or lack of money. For a country that takes in 200 B monthly, less than 10% of which can pay interest on the debt, there's no cause for alarm today.

Could there be cause for alarm tomorrow? Sure. That's why some of the leaders are arguing for reduced borrowing and spending. That your major point is that debt can overwhelm a country someday is not an excuse or license to claim it is happening to the US TODAY. If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of economics.

And what rating did all these Moodys, S&Ps and other (including more localized) agencies give Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Nigerian banks before the 'melt down' in each case?

Beyond that, I agree that the threatened US 'default' (if at all it happens) will essentially be a technical default rather than one due to proper inability to service the facilities.

^^^ What is your problem and what hymns are you talking about? Did you understand my post(s) at all?

On a lighter note, English humour can sometimes be smutty and playful with innuendoes; anyone who realises the potential "double-entendres" in quite a lot of hymns/songs might struggle to keep a straight face or disguise in-building laughter when singing them! Even now I have just restrained myself from giving examples so as "not to corrupt innocent minds".  Nuff said. 

Ah, well said and I agree; I think indeed we do need to be mindful. However, though, some well intended and even appropriate expressions can be misunderstood even though they are correct when appreciated in their proper context. Consider this old song which I personally still love to sing very much indeed.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/l/jlmysoul.htm

Jesus, lover of my soul, let me to Thy bosom fly,
While the nearer waters roll, while the tempest still is high.
Hide me, O my Savior, hide, till the storm of life is past;
Safe into the haven guide; O receive my soul at last.

Other refuge have I none, hangs my helpless soul on Thee;
Leave, ah! leave me not alone, still support and comfort me.
All my trust on Thee is stayed, all my help from Thee I bring;
Cover my defenseless head with the shadow of Thy wing.

Wilt Thou not regard my call? Wilt Thou not accept my prayer?
Lo! I sink, I faint, I fall—Lo! on Thee I cast my care;
Reach me out Thy gracious hand! While I of Thy strength receive,
Hoping against hope I stand, dying, and behold, I live.

Thou, O Christ, art all I want, more than all in Thee I find;
Raise the fallen, cheer the faint, heal the sick, and lead the blind.
Just and holy is Thy Name, I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am; Thou art full of truth and grace.

Plenteous grace with Thee is found, grace to cover all my sin;
Let the healing streams abound; make and keep me pure within.
Thou of life the fountain art, freely let me take of Thee;
Spring Thou up within my heart; rise to all eternity.