Prayer and power

[Meffy]

Then why bother? If God is omnipotent, his will will be done, by definition.

And if he's omniscient he already knows the needs, wishes, and devotion of those who are supposed to pray, and if he's omnibenevolent he will do what those who are devoted need.

 

[Tricky]

And if he's omniscient he already knows the needs, wishes, and devotion of those who are supposed to pray, and if he's omnibenevolent he will do what those who are devoted need.

If indeed prayers are what Elliot says they are, then prayers make zero difference to God. Unless he just likes having his ego stroked. Somehow it seems like God should be above that kind of petty thing.

 

[Meffy]

*thinks of Lazarus Long's words on the subject and nods agreement*

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Then why bother? If God is omnipotent, his will will be done, by definition.

And if he's omniscient he already knows the needs, wishes, and devotion of those who are supposed to pray, and if he's omnibenevolent he will do what those who are devoted need.

To which, I think, can only be added that if god's also infallible, there's nil room for error. So prayer shouldn't be necessary to begin with.

Ever.

'Luthon64

 

[Tricky]

*thinks of Lazarus Long's words on the subject and nods agreement*

The Heinlen character? I'm not familiar with his position. (And for failing to include the quote, you should be de-scented).

Myself, I'm more partial to Ambrose Bierce.

PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

 

[Genesius]

The Heinlen character? I'm not familiar with his position. (And for failing to include the quote, you should be de-scented).

Heinlein had a number of good quotes on the subject:

History does not record anywhere a religion that has any rational basis.
Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help.
But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.

And, off topic but my fave anyway:

Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors — and miss.

ETA a whole buncha quotes.

 

[Beerina]

Try not to be the guy who winds up with sloppy one hundred eighty thousand nine hundred eighty thirds.

Reminds me of that line from Clerks. Well, I guess we've gotta call it "Clerks 1", now.

One guy finds out his girlfriend had admitted to sex with like seven guys. Then he finds out she gave a hummer to 38 guys, and they were arguing as to why she didn't think that "counted". From a guy's point of view, it sure did.

Anyhoo, she leaves, and his buddy puts his hand on his shoulder and says to him, "Well, at least it wasn't 37."

 

[Beerina]

Darat, being all-knowing and all-powerful doesn't mean that you *have* to do anything and everything that anybody asks you to do.

-Elliot

Nah, if you're all-powerful, you can just sit back and watch the violence and sordid sexual activities, and "tune in" on anything of particular interest. What a sick f***!

 

[Meffy]

Anyone who wants to try to de-scent a human-sized skunk is welcome to try. :-} Won't work. Not the way intended, anyhow...

The next-to-last in Genesius' post is the one I was thinking of.

 

[RandFan]

My point is that Christians understand, better than you do apparently, that God's will ought to be done, and not our will. *This distinction, which I don't think anybody here is willing to accept, is what enables prayer, and is what makes prayer something that will continue to happen*.

No, this is just wrong. While I can't speak for everyone there are a number of posters here who are making a very important distinction that you are ignoring.

God's will is to NEVER heal those that otherwise can NEVER be healed.
or
God doesn't heal anyone.
or
There is no God.

There are only 3 possibilities.

 

[Beerina]

Everything that is logically possible, but not the logically impossible as would be the case of allowing someone to live forever yet die at the same time.

According to Wikipedia:

Mainstream Catholic theology eventually reconciled itself to the Greek and Arabic material the Reconquista made available, thanks in large part to Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica affirmed the notion that God could not defy logic.

-Bri

I note the Catholic's version of God is inferior to Carl Sagan's version of the creators of the universe in Contact (book version).

In the book, the aliens have discovered that, buried billions or trillions of digits into transcendental numbers like pi are encodings of messages that statistically shouldn't be there, even allowing for the absurdely large number of digits. Hence they must have been placed there not just by the creator of the universe, but the far deeper creator who reated logic itself.

 

[RandFan]

My point is that Christians understand, better than you do apparently, that God's will ought to be done, and not our will.

I know you would rather ignore these questions but I'm going to keep asking in the vain hope that you will answer. If what you are saying is true then why all of the scriptures that contradict this position? By not answering you demonstrate that you are willing to be obtuse to protect your own world view. Fine but don't lecture us about nuance.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Please to explain this scripture? Why is it in the Bible? What does it mean?

1.) This is not God's meaning.
2.) This is God's meaning.
3.) Something else.

????

 

[RandFan]

This sounds like a false dilemma to me. Isn't it possible that God sometimes cures cancer, but doesn't choose to regrow limbs (or grow an extra limb, for that matter)?

Ok, WHY?

Why is it that God never heals that which otherwise is impossible to heal?

This is a very important question. One that no one is making any attempt to answer. How can cures of otherwise curable diseases be attributed to God if God is unwilling to cure otherwise incurable maladies.

Inquiring minds would like to know. Sadly there is no answer. Now you can claim that God chooses not to heal these people. Ok, why does the Bible say And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. --Matthew 21:22

That is a single sentence. It's pretty straightforward. No ambiguities.

1.) This is God's meaning in which case he lied.
2.) This isn't God's meaning. In which case the Bible can't be relied on.

 

[Meffy]

*ponder* What unit of measurement should be used to denote the power of prayer in everyday calculations? The paternoster-hour? Too easily confused with pH for acidity/alkalinity. The kilosupplication? The old avoirdupois beseechment? Scientists are baffled^TM.

 

[roger]

This sounds like a false dilemma to me. Isn't it possible that God sometimes cures cancer, but doesn't choose to regrow limbs (or grow an extra limb, for that matter)?

Yes, it's a false dilemma. As I posted later, please don't be distracted by the soundbite quality of the question. The point is not about amputees per se, it's that whenever there can be no doubt whether God answers a prayer or not, he never does. When one can confuse a normal event with an answered prayer, there's tons of examples of 'answered prayers'.

I will stipulate that regardless of the "no doubt" scenerio that anyone can think up, we can also make up some counter reason for why God would not answer any prayer in that instance. - "Oh, God doesn't answer prayers when there is an MRI machine being used, along with a xyz chemical protocol. he only answers if one of the two is being used."

The claim is not that we can prove, beyond all doubt, that no prayers are answered. The claim is that we can specify a large number of scenerios where we can reasonably show no prayers are answered. You can move the goal posts by just making up some reason for why a prayer is not answered in that instance, but that's not parsimonious, because the reasons are going to vary based on the scenerio. I.e., in scenerio A God doesn't answer because MRI machines are used, but in scenerio B it's because something else (he just doesn't want to regrow limbs). It's arbitrary, and just so. So, occam's razor suggests the simpler answer - no prayers are being answered at all.

Also, there is less of a false dilemma in my statement than you might think. I stated "either God really hate amputees, or people are mistaken about God is answering prayers to cure cancer, etc." Just replace "hate" with "chooses not to heal", and I have covered your case. Why would God choose not to heal an amputee? It makes no sense. Unless no prayers are being answered at all.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Pat Robertson heals HIV by pointing his hand at the TV and squinting. Ernest Angley, Benny Hinn, and the rest of the bozos make claims of god healing HIV/AIDS.

He can heal uncurable maladies as long as there are no visible physical symptoms. If the person dies anyway its because they lost faith and "let the devil steal their healing". Dont forget that the miracle can be revoked at anytime and its your fault. Skeptical examination can be seen as a lack of faith and so can the continued use of proper medication.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

*ponder* What unit of measurement should be used to denote the power of prayer in everyday calculations? The paternoster-hour? Too easily confused with pH for acidity/alkalinity. The kilosupplication? The old avoirdupois beseechment? Scientists are baffled^TM.

Hmm, good question...

How about 1 ask = 1,000 pleads, 1 plead = 1,000 grovels?

Oh, and, in terms of returns, 1 favour = ∞ asks.

'Luthon64

 

[grayman]

Pat Robertson heals HIV by pointing his hand at the TV and squinting. Ernest Angley, Benny Hinn, and the rest of the bozos make claims of god healing HIV/AIDS.

He can heal uncurable maladies as long as there are no visible physical symptoms. If the person dies anyway its because they lost faith and "let the devil steal their healing". Dont forget that the miracle can be revoked at anytime and its your fault. Skeptical examination can be seen as a lack of faith and so can the continued use of proper medication.

Kinda goes back to what I wrote earlier:

God answers prayer = miracle
God doesn't answer prayer = God's Will

 

[slingblade]

This sounds like a false dilemma to me. Isn't it possible that God sometimes cures cancer, but doesn't choose to regrow limbs (or grow an extra limb, for that matter)?

Then, apparently, God misspoke himself.


Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

God not granting all prayers would seem only to be a problem for anyone interpreting those Bible passages that were posted as meaning that God grants all prayers. [...]

How else should I interpret it? Why make such a promise in such a way if that isn't what God meant to say? Why say it at all? Remember, if Jesus was God in human form, then God made that particular promise directly to us with his very own mouth.

Here's the problem: any parent, upon reading just that one verse, is going to tap God on his celestial shoulder and say, "Heavenly Father, are you insane?"

"You know you can't give children everything they ask for; we all know it. Kids ask for stupid things, selfish things. They ask for deadly, hurtful things. Kids are mean! They're cruel and self-centered and impulsive. You can't give a kid such a dangerous weapon as that and expect things to go well...."

At that point, I would think most parents (at least) would pause and say to themselves, "A reasonable, loving, sane God couldn't possibly have said that. A reasonable, loving, sane parent would never say it, so why would a god?"

That never, so far as we can know, has God ever restored an amputated limb (or even a limb that was unformed or malformed at birth) as a result of prayer, is obviously indicative that there is a BIG problem somewhere.

 

[Tricky]

"You know you can't give children everything they ask for; we all know it. Kids ask for stupid things, selfish things. They ask for deadly, hurtful things. Kids are mean! They're cruel and self-centered and impulsive. You can't give a kid such a dangerous weapon as that and expect things to go well...."

And then there's the problem where there are two mutually conflicting prayers, like if the two opponants in a game both earnestly pray for victory. Does God pick the one with more talent?