A question of theology.

[Jin-roh]

I'd like to know how you're measuring outcome, actually. Quite frankly, who are you to determine whether a prayer has been effective or not? If God exists (and I'm certain He does), we cannot know His mind totally. We can't see the future. We don't know the plan. However, we are COMMANDED to pray. Prayer is about more than request. It is worshipful reverence, thankfulness, praise, confession, repentance, and request all rolled into one. You're focusing on just one aspect when it is far more than that; as a result, you're misinterpreting what prayer is supposed to be.

In regard to prayer requests, they are a form of worship, like Jesus did in Gethsemane when He pleaded "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will (Mt. 26:39)." It is a plea to God, but an acknowledgment that His will is (and should be) paramount. It's worship, plain and simple. "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." We are to ask only in the context that we ask in the full knowledge that God's will overrides our desires.

And herein lies the problem for atheists. I do think that its just that Fuggle et al have failed to explain how they are measuring x units of prayer to z units of miracles or anything - it is that this cannot be done in principle. Even Deacon has explained why, so I don't need repeat it.

If people really think this is a cop-out, then I should explain. Believing that prayer is anything but what Christians define it as (i.e something that can be measure and quantified, as if God was some kind impersonal auto-genie) strikes at position that does not reflect their opponents position. It hits a made up target. What was that called again? ... oh yeah...

[StruckingFuggle]

I believe in the Almighty and you're not going to change my mind on that. Call it a cop-out if you feel the need, but my faith makes it real to me, just as it does for other believers.

Any idea what makes your Almighty more real and your faith rightly placed in him, and, say, Thor, unreal, and faith in him misplaced?

And it is that faith that has literally saved my life(...).

Literally? Would you care to share how so?



<--------->

If people really think this is a cop-out, then I should explain. Believing that prayer is anything but what Christians define it as (i.e something that can be measure and quantified, as if God was some kind impersonal auto-genie) strikes at position that does not reflect their opponents position. It hits a made up target. What was that called again? ... oh yeah...

And how do 'Christians', as a singular, monolithic entity, uniformly define prayer?

I think you'll have a hard time answering that, and while you mull it over - and remember, this must be an answer for all Christians! (which might also be a bit difficult to define, who that excludes and includes) - I'd like to ask in what way <an operational definition of "prayer"> for <the purposes of this discussion> being <how / why people seem to use that prayer> properly constitutes a straw man.

I'm not making up anything. I'm looking at this behavior, called by its practitioners "prayer", and asking about that.

So yeah, I'm sorry, but unless you've got some brilliant insight to illuminate me, you're seemingly just wrong; but it's a good attempt at dismissing a discussion you - both personally and the more generic "royal you" - seem fundamentally incapable of having.



eta: meanwhile, you seem to be trying to pull of some sort of variation of the old 'no true scotsman' fallacy. However, it doesn't work, because ultimately, going back to the OT (heh, original topic), the label is, largely, irrelevant (beyond labeling effects). There is behavior X, done for reasons Y, called Z. This behavior is, by the people who do X, seemingly called 'prayer', and it is Behavior X that I am asking about; saying merely that "Z is not really Z" (while possibly invoking false men of scotland) doesn't really change anything about X.

Perhaps I should once more restate the question? I can even do so without using the word "prayer".

[bagheadinc]

Any idea what makes your Almighty more real and your faith rightly placed in him, and, say, Thor, unreal, and faith in him misplaced?

Do you not understand the concept of faith?

[StruckingFuggle]

I do, but I'd still like to see his answer. If he can give the question serious consideration and still have no answer but "faith", well ... I don't know.

But I'd be depressed and scared.

Besides, even faith, even that kind of extra-blind faith that could consider the question seriously and then wholly reject it without issue, has to come from some place or thing, it likely cannot exist as an autogenic, ambient state of being, but rather as a result of something.


edit: appended some stuff onto my last post, too.

[Jin-roh]

If people really think this is a cop-out, then I should explain. Believing that prayer is anything but what Christians define it as (i.e something that can be measure and quantified, as if God was some kind impersonal auto-genie) strikes at position that does not reflect their opponents position. It hits a made up target. What was that called again? ... oh yeah...

And how do 'Christians', as a singular, monolithic entity, uniformly define prayer?

Strictly speaking, Fuggle, I do not need a uniform, univocal definition of a "prayer," in order to show that your statements contain a strawman, however veiled. I only need the fact Christians, such as those represented on this board, do not agree with your understanding of prayer or however else you wish to denote it.

I'm not making up anything. I'm looking at this behavior, called by its practitioners "prayer", and asking about that.

But you're still drawing conclusions based on hidden assumptions. Forgive me if you done so already, but maybe you can explain how you know this:

when God has long shown that such things do not prevent the blessed from coming to harm?

I think maybe we can call these things "prayers" or "glumphs" if you wish.

So yeah, I'm sorry, but unless you've got some brilliant insight to illuminate me, you're seemingly just wrong; but it's a good attempt at dismissing a discussion you - both personally and the more generic "royal you" - seem fundamentally incapable of having.

So are we going to neener-neener mode already?

[bagheadinc]

QUIT BASHIN' MAH BELIEFS!

[Deacon]

Don't feel some need to change my ways, Eric.

Nobody's trying to. You're explaining your stance, and I'm explaining mine. I grew up in a very church-involved Christian household (of Baptist background but more non-denominational-slash-evangelical since at least middle school) and was myself a very faithful, devout Christian until only a few years ago, probably some time around 22 or 23 or so... Just ask Fuggle, MB, and others here. I was a very strong, vocal proponent for Christianity in general and of sanity in the loathing some atheists harbor for it and put many hours into clearing up misconceptions about...so many things...

I'm very well aware of all the modern theology and thought regarding prayer. My mother was just assigned the position of Prayer Pastor for the whole church my parents attend. NONE of this is a new topic to me, trust me. The difference is that when I wasn't immersed eyeballs-deep in it all, I began to see it from a distance, more objectively, and thus began to realize how truly silly it all is. I would be "backsliding" as some would call it, being less and less bound by the modern church-based conventions and traditions. The only thing that "proves" God and your alleged relationship with him (why/how "you know that you know") are the things you feel and what you believe as a result. But the simple truth is it's no better or worse or more right or real than anyone else's religious experiences, and it can all be explained away as "God's will" or simply replaced with "a wizard did it." Even wacko cults make sense to the cult member when they live and breathe the stuff constantly. Same thing goes for political parties or any other such thing.

If I pray for rain, and none comes, I'm either being punished or it's not God's will or whatever. If the rain does come, then God answers prayer. Right? You pray for a little girl injured in a car wreck. The doctors work hard and sure enough, she pulls through. A miracle! Or, you know, good medical care and a strong young body. Interesting how few such "miracles" there were before the invention of penicillin and the washing of hands and bedsheets. Or maybe the little girl doesn't pull through. Well, God called her home, right? He's teaching her loved ones lessons in the desert, right? But the other little girl next to her for whom nobody was praying does pull through. Well, God must obviously have a plan for her life, right? Your sister gets knocked up by her husband when they weren't planning on having kids for several years at least, and "God allowed it to happen," because you know he has a plan, right? It's not that they said screw it and decided to forgo the condom that one time or forgot to take the pill one day or that everyone's body chemistry and reaction to hormones in the pill is different, etc. Indians were convinced their Rain Dancers were real. Were they? Do you really see God when you get a little peyote or magic mushrooms in your system, or is it just brain chemistry? If I pray for one thing, and you pray for the opposite, both fervently and with good hearts, what then?

It makes as much sense as believing in a lucky penny. At best it provides confidence and assurance, that extra edge needed to produce a positive result.

Quite frankly, who are you to determine whether a prayer has been effective or not?

A person? What kind of silly question is that? Either what you were praying for is fulfilled or not. The real problem is there's no way to determine whether your praying had jack to do with it or not, especially when they're matters entirely out of your control. But if you pray for wisdom regarding a major decision, and whatever you decide pans out, awesome. But if it doesn't, well, either you didn't hear God right or he decided you need to walk the desert for a while and teach you perseverance or whatever else.

Prayer is about more than request. It is worshipful reverence, thankfulness, praise, confession, repentance, and request all rolled into one. You're focusing on just one aspect when it is far more than that; as a result, you're misinterpreting what prayer is supposed to be.

He's really not, no. Thankfulness is not prayer. You can express your thankfulness in prayer, but there's no result of that. If someone asks "does prayer work" or "does God answer prayer" what they're asking is whether God grants requests, whether for things, for wisdom, for outcomes, for whatever. Asking does confession work, for instance, is kind of silly because really you won't know until you're dead, or the answer may be that it's just makes you feel better or whatever.

It is a plea to God, but an acknowledgment that His will is (and should be) paramount.

Yes, exactly why to anyone who doesn't share your deeply held conviction the the invisible wizard is real thinks it so silly, just running around assigning significance to coincidences.

And no, prayer is not worship. There's too much of that kind of thing in modern Christianity. Planting a garden is not worship. Cooking a meal for a homeless person is not worship. Going to work and doing your job well is not worship. Worship is basically synonymous with praise. You might be able to stretch it cover giving money to your pastor as an act of worship, but that's about it. It's like these days the Bible has become like the Constitution, the originator of concepts but after being interpreted further and further by people cashing in on book-devouring Christians, they've talked themselves into nearly everything.

And herein lies the problem for atheists.

I think the real problem for atheists is the same problem they'd have with someone who points at a red light and says, "Turn green!" and it does, and then they smile proudly and say, "I'm magic!" If you pray long enough and hard enough for rain, eventually it will come. It might even come in the next few minutes. But maybe not for years. But it would've come even if you hadn't been praying. Your prayer had no effect on the weather. Prayer may bring you some comfort and make you feel good or give you a sense of purpose, but it has no effect on the world around us.

[PVTHillbilly]

Yes, the standard answer is that if it doesn't make sense it doesn't matter because God moves in mysterious ways. It's the ultimate cop-out.

I'm not one for religious arguments. I believe in the Almighty and you're not going to change my mind on that. Call it a cop-out if you feel the need, but my faith makes it real to me, just as it does for other believers. And it is that faith that has literally saved my life and made me who I am.

Don't feel some need to change my ways, Eric. My belief in the Almighty doesn't hurt you in any way, shape, or form. It might bug you because you can't find any scientific evidence for it, but I'm some faceless git on the intarwebz as far as you know me.

That was explained well. I'm the same way. Most people who do not believe in God feel some compelling need to insult you, or try and change your minds. Most Atheists are worse than the "bible thumpers" ever thought about being. Yes, I believe in God. Yes, I go to church every week. Yes, I'm raising my daughter in the church. No, I do not go around trying to force my beliefs on other people. If people are up for a mature conversation on the subject, Yes, I will tell them what I believe, and the bible reference that backs up my belief.

But, if you do not believe in God to begin with, I can't change your mind on that. Because you need to have faith. Just as you cannot tell me with 100% proof how the world began, I can't tell you with 100% proof the existance in God, I can tell you that I know he is real with 100% certainty, but that is my FAITH.

You can tell me what ever you want with the Big Bang Theory (not the show). But, it's called a theory for a reason, no proof that it happened. But, you may believe in that, why? Because that's what you have faith in.

[Arc Orion]

it's called a theory for a reason, no proof that it happened.

It is called a theory because scientists aren't so delusional as to believe that the explanations which fit the evidence are necessarily correct in whole. They accept the fact that despite the PROOF of their claims, they may have some aspect of the theory wrong, or the theory itself may be incorrect. However, all scientific theories are based upon observable evidence, and every time I see somebody claim that a theory "has no proof", I can't help but wonder if they've actually taken a look at the proof. It is called a theory for a reason - there is at least some proof that it happened.

[Deacon]

Most people who do not believe in God feel some compelling need to insult you, or try and change your minds.

At this point I think you're pulling my leg.

Yes, I will tell them what I believe, and the bible reference that backs up my belief.

You do realize the flaw in that, right? If someone isn't already 100% convinced that the Bible as you read it is 100% the God's honest truth, it's kind of fruitless. It's like someone trying to tell you about how the Big Bang happened and all the physics and observable evidence that backs it up, while you plug your fingers and shout "LA LA LA LA LA." Except that one is observable and reasonable and the other is a collection of fractured fairy tales.

But, if you do not believe in God to begin with, I can't change your mind on that.

That's not actually true. Not every person who follows some religion today has always followed that religion (or any religion at all). Sometimes people's minds are changed. But you're right in that you can't change someone's mind through reason. It must be something emotional or irrational, something that trumps reason. Why do you think alter calls work so well?

[Jin-roh]

I think the real problem for atheists is the same problem they'd have with someone who points at a red light and says, "Turn green!" and it does, and then they smile proudly and say, "I'm magic!" If you pray long enough and hard enough for rain, eventually it will come. It might even come in the next few minutes. But maybe not for years. But it would've come even if you hadn't been praying. Your prayer had no effect on the weather. Prayer may bring you some comfort and make you feel good or give you a sense of purpose, but it has no effect on the world around us.

Deacon, from your posts in this thread I am beginning to think you exchanged a vacant form of Christianity for an equally shallow whatever it is you believe now. You would do well to consider listening to others and respond to what they actually think rather than responding to whatever caricature it is you are cooking up.

[collegestudent22]

If someone isn't already 100% convinced that the Bible as you read it is 100% the God's honest truth, it's kind of fruitless. It's like someone trying to tell you about how the Big Bang happened and all the physics and observable evidence that backs it up, while you plug your fingers and shout "LA LA LA LA LA." Except that one is observable and reasonable and the other is a collection of fractured fairy tales.

Except the Big Bang is described at least in part in Genesis.

"Using 100% accepted scientific principles, "Genesis & the Big Bang" offers convincing evidence that science's "Big Bang" creation model and the Bible's Genesis One's explanation for the creation of the universe are one-in-the-same. Based on the in-depth research of Bible scholar and MIT physics professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder,"

[Deacon]

Deacon, from your posts in this thread I am beginning to think you exchanged a vacant form of Christianity for an equally shallow whatever it is you believe now.

You should know better than that. You've been around long enough. And to be honest, that kind of eyes-closed, nose-held-high response and basically calling me a ninny (yes, it's about that ridiculous) neither helps your case nor becomes you.

And I'm sorry if pointing out the similarity to things you find ridiculous (e.g. Rain Dancers) strikes you as a caricature, but it's really not. It's a pretty straight comparison.

Except the Big Bang is described at least in part in Genesis.

Oh come off it. I've studied Genesis all my life. Both stories of creation. Nowhere is the Big Bang described. Any attempt to do so would be along the lines of insisting that Nostradamus predicted the 9/11 attacks on the WTC. Regardless, the point was specifically in response to PVT's proclaiming that nobody could convince her that the Big Bang occurred, despite it being reasonable and scientifically sound.

And what were you quoting, there? And why would you say the due's an MIT professor? He got his doctorate from MIT in the 60's and has been living in Israel ever since. It wouldn't be the first time someone tried to don their creative license cap in order to retroactively interpret the Bible in some sort of way that might not totally contradict observable science.

[collegestudent22]

Nowhere is the Big Bang described.

"Let there be light." That doesn't describe the Big Bang. You know, an instant explosion of light everywhere in the universe simultaneously.... Really?

[Deacon]

No, it was a prophecy regarding Thomas Edison's civilization-changing invention. At least, that makes about as much sense. Give me a break. Let there be light. If you're going to start quoting scripture, you better make damn sure you're not going to pull the same silly shit militant atheists do and pull little snippets out of context. Let's evaluate it IN context, shall we, in Genesis 1:2-8, as translated in the Amplified Bible (which I like because it expounds on words that might have connotations or multiple interpretations)?

The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good (suitable, pleasant) and He approved it; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How in the world could you possibly interpret that as a description of the Big Bang, the cataclysmic explosion of the entire universe in a pinpoint of matter many billions of years ago? There are so many things wrong with that assertion, not the least of which is that we're starting with an earth that's already in existence and contained water and made evening and morning, one day. Not the Big Bang.

Of course, I have a feeling that attempting to discuss this with you in a rational way is silly.