Ship of Fools: What is granted in response to prayer?

Thread: What is granted in response to prayer? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026088

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

A few recent threads have led me to ask whether people really believe God does something if asked. I'm not trolling for prayers myself, nor personal support, nor anything else of that nature.

My experiences have led me to consider that for a half century I kept believing that God answered prayers, and then I finally accumulated enough evidence to understand it was the coping and support alone that were granted, nothing tangible. I now feel upset with those who led me to believe such things, and misled, both by clergy and lay people. Their notions led me and mine to the brink.

The line of reasoning that tells me that God doesn't actually do anything concrete in terms of changing the world is that if God listens to one person and grants some answer (or miracle) but not to a second person, then God would appear to be playing favourites and by not intervening for the non-favoured. Further God is actually smiting them by omission. Example: The parents of one sick child pray for the child's life and the child lives, and the likewise praying parents of another child dies. Or the child who personally prays for the stopping of abuse who is ignored in answer, and another who is not. (I could be more specific and personal in my examples, but these should serve to make the points.)

Would we suggest that the prayers not granted were not sincere enough, good enough, not enough people praying them? I also hear the answer sometimes that God moves in mysterious ways, that people need to trust that all is for the best in the long run, that we learn from all of it etc. But the immediate experience of the unanswered prayers seems to indicate that either God grants prayer answers to some, and not to others. Instead, I think the answered ones are probably happy coincidences and attributing them to God is a mistake, because a non-granted subsequent prayer will be interpreted as abandonment.

Companion on the journey: that's God's real role. Would God not have saved Jesus if interventions to prayer actually worked? Sure the words we read are "not my will but they will", but Jesus certainly meant what he said when he wanted rescue while dying crucified didn't he? If he didn't then he was not a human being.

Thus, I think what such prayer actually does is raise the problem that the requester has, highlights lack of control and inability to manage it, may alert others to help that person by at least letting them know they're being thought of, and perhaps have the mind of the requester more accurately formed to the reality of our non-control of the thing prayed about and then more prepared to accept the outcome.

Thus, I argue that God does not intervene in human affairs, except insofar as to strengthen and help us cope. Nothing more. I have not worked out the resurrection story within this, and generally have deferred my thinking about it, but I suspect that's next on journey of thinking through this all.

So do you really believe that God answers prayers in tangible forthright ways? Or just grants them to favoured people?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Neither.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I believe that prayer is about conversation with God, much of which is expression of love, thanks and praise, and stillness together. When we pray intercessory prayers, we're asking for God's presence to be known in a situation for guidance, or for comfort, or for healing. We may never know whether or not God's presence was known as a result of our requests, but it's good to do it as God likes to hear our desires, and because sometimes it's all we can do.

I too feel uncomfortable when people suggest that 'shopping list' prayers will 'work', as if we're able to manipulate God somehow to do our bidding. It doesn't work that way, and as you said take a look at Jesus to show us that's the case!

I think that the miracles of Jesus were to show people God. Miracles today do the same thing, they show people God, for instance when an addict is saved and freed from addiction, and subsequently shares his testimony. Miracles are about promoting God and building God's kingdom, one-off events which say that this is what the kingdom of heaven is like, it's worthwhile going for it, it's not like the world we live in. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask for miracles, but that we shouldn't expect them to be provided for our benefit, only for God's good purposes.

God has promised that everything will be made perfect, but that won't be until the second coming, the end of the world as we know it.

What is granted? God's presence, guidance, healing (natural, wholeness, and medical progress), hope to replace fear, inner peace, and coincidences beyond coincidence which help us to see that God influences people who listen.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

My experiences have led me to consider that for a half century I kept believing that God answered prayers, and then I finally accumulated enough evidence to understand it was the coping and support alone that were granted, nothing tangible. I now feel upset with those who led me to believe such things, and misled, both by clergy and lay people. Their notions led me and mine to the brink.

Let me start by just acknowledging the pain behind this statement, and my deep regret for the role we (the Church, clergy, Christians as a whole) have played in increasing your pain.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

The line of reasoning that tells me that God doesn't actually do anything concrete in terms of changing the world is that if God listens to one person and grants some answer (or miracle) but not to a second person, then God would appear to be playing favourites and by not intervening for the non-favoured. Further God is actually smiting them by omission. Example: The parents of one sick child pray for the child's life and the child lives, and the likewise praying parents of another child dies. Or the child who personally prays for the stopping of abuse who is ignored in answer, and another who is not. (I could be more specific and personal in my examples, but these should serve to make the points.)

Would we suggest that the prayers not granted were not sincere enough, good enough, not enough people praying them?

Hell, no. I hate that such thoughts are even out there. And it's surprising, given the number of times the Bible specifically renounces this line of thought-- from God rebuking Job's friends, to Jesus' answer to the disciples' request "who sinner, this man or his parents, that he should suffer?" In every case, God says "no" to the false teaching that would suggest that our suffering is caused by some hidden sin/ inadequate faith/ whatever. Your instinct to similarly reject this line of thinking is spot on.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

I also hear the answer sometimes that God moves in mysterious ways, that people need to trust that all is for the best in the long run, that we learn from all of it etc.

I would agree with the implication that this is only marginally better than the more painful examples above. It is cold comfort, and sounds a lot better in abstract theory then when you're faced with the real, hard-core suffering of innocents.

Yet, there is at least this one probable exception being:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

Companion on the journey: that's God's real role. Would God not have saved Jesus if interventions to prayer actually worked? Sure the words we read are "not my will but they will", but Jesus certainly meant what he said when he wanted rescue while dying crucified didn't he? If he didn't then he was not a human being.

Given that we believe Jesus' death on the cross was the means by which we are reconciled to God (*insert favorite theory of the atonement here-- they all work*) this would, in fact, be an example of God permitting evil to happen in order to accomplish the greater good. So really what we see in the Bible is not so much a single explanation for suffering but rather many-- and the problem lies when we try to make any one explanation a one-size-fits all explanation.

This particular explanation, this one particular good brought out of evil, is different though, precisely because Jesus IS God, and therefore it is God who is doing the suffering. It's not God allowing some innocent child to suffer and then saying "Oh, I had a good reason-- just trust me" but rather Godself in the person of Jesus Christ experiencing pain and suffering (and yes, anguished by that) as a necessary means to a redemptive end.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

I also hear the answer sometimes that God moves in mysterious ways, that people need to trust that all is for the best in the long run, that we learn from all of it etc.

...Thus, I argue that God does not intervene in human affairs, except insofar as to strengthen and help us cope. Nothing more. I have not worked out the resurrection story within this, and generally have deferred my thinking about it, but I suspect that's next on journey of thinking through this all.

So do you really believe that God answers prayers in tangible forthright ways? Or just grants them to favoured people?

This question is, of course, an ancient one, with many answers offered, none really satisfactory, as you have seen.

Where I've arrived as late is at the "warfare worldview" articulated by Walter Wink (who calls it "integral worldview") and Greg Boyd. This position takes the experience of pain & suffering seriously, but posits the blame lies in the choices of free agents-- both human and otherworldly (Satan & his minions in Boyd's view, a more depersonalized "forces of evil" in Wink's). They would suggest that evil & suffering (including unanswered prayer) happens not because God wills or even allows it, but because there is at this time a "cosmic battle" between the forces of good & evil-- between the "powers and principalities" of "this age" vs. those of the "age to come" (Eph. 6). While Wink & Boyd would acknowledge that God is sovereign and all-powerful, he does not exert that as "omni-control", but allows some of his created creatures (humans, but also angelic beings) free choice within some constraints, which allows room for evil and suffering. We have a prophetic promise that one day Christ will rule His Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven", but for now, there is still an ongoing battle. We experience that battle daily thru suffering.

It comes down to the notion that the Kingdom of God is both "now" and "not yet". Because Jesus has come, the Kingdom is "inaugurated"-- the power of the Spirit is present and active in our world-- so we have miracles-- healing, reconciliation, renewal, transformation. And yet, because the Kingdom is also "not yet"-- it's complete fulfillment has not yet come-- we still see suffering and unanswered prayer.

Other shipmates will post other explanations-- this is a hotly debated topic! What I've suggested here is a subset of Open Theism-- a more radical rethinking of the problem of evil than most.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
So do you really believe that God answers prayers in tangible forthright ways? Or just grants them to favoured people?

A/ sometimes (but just for a laugh) (if He does not come He sends).

b/ no.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Nothing is granted.

I don't believe God gives us things, I believe God gives us Himself.

(So s/he gives us the peace/resilience/hope/love etc that we need to cope)

God doesn't give us things or change anything.

I believe in prayer - but I don't believe that God changes anything due to prayer. God changes people and people improve lives. So personal prayer is opening ourselves up to God and the possibilities God has for us.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I wonder if any work has been done on the psychological impact of prayer? It seems to me to be something deeply ingrained in the human psyche, in that all religious faiths of all kinds do it. Is the change wrought in us (and therefore the world) rather than a change wrought in God? I can understand prayer too from the perspective of self attestation, rather than begging intervention, but I do think part of the problem in the Christian tradition regarding prayer is in he reformed traditions attitude to extemporary prayer. In many Christian traditions, prayer is always coupled with scripture (most often liturgical in nature) which attests to the same issues raised in the OP, whereas the more modern emphasis on extemporary prayer leaves many thinking that this is the only way to pray, which can certainly lead to the situation described here. In the reformed churches that I have had experience of there was always at least a notion that prayer went hand in hand with a study of the scriptures - a kind of lectio divina if you will - where scripture informs prayer, rather than it being a list of personal wants and desires.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose I never thought that God would give me a parking space, or cure my flu, and I was always puzzled by people who seemed to think that he would.

We are talking about different concepts of God really. I find the idea of God 'intervening' bizarre, not because he doesn't, but because he is here all the time. So what would he intervene in? Some kind of non-God, I suppose? I don't get that.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Coping, putting up with, sometimes sending the right thing to say in a difficult situation.

And giving the grace to stay silent when dealing with those who quote the positive answers to rather trivial prayers as if magic.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think we are supposed to be the answers to our prayers.

Prayer changes us, not God.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

I agree. Intercessory prayer doesn't work, and cannot work for reasons stated in the OP. I found that out early in life when my father died - a lot or praying went on then but it didn't change the situation. And later in life when my father-in-law was terminally ill there was a great deal of praying but he still died.

For that reason I find the intercessions (or the newsreel, as I think of them) pointless. All that you get is a rehash of the morning's news bulletin (currently Syria, Kenya, party conferences, etc) coupled with teasing hints that are never fully explained about people in the parish (why is Joan in hospital? where is Tom going and why does he need our prayers? - presumably not on holiday).

It becomes quite hilarious when you get to Synodical level. There was a lot of praying going on for guidance from the Holy Spirit on the consecration of women bishops. And then when the Holy Spirit (presumably) had guided the synod to a No vote, everyone complains that the result was wrong. If you think there is a risk that the Holy Spirit will get it wrong, why bother praying to him/her/it for guidance in the first place.

Meditative prayer might be a different matter but meditation does not necessarily require a god to be effective.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

My old rector used to call it News at Ten - and we pray for the orphans in Somalia, and also for Mrs Carruthers, who's having her ingrowing toe-nail operated on, and also the Prime Minister, so that he does a good job, and also the local scouts, who are collecting this week, and also Mrs Merkel, who is really a wonderful woman, and here's hoping we have a sunny day for the annual fete. Roger and out.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think we are supposed to be the answers to our prayers.

Prayer changes us, not God.

Have you told God that? I bet He's just waiting for us to tell Him how prayer works (or not).

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I'd say that if I pray for something for long enough, I always figure out eventually what God is trying to tell me in response.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think we are supposed to be the answers to our prayers.

Prayer changes us, not God.
Have you told God that? I bet He's just waiting for us to tell Him how prayer works (or not).

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

I think S. Teresa told him first - Christ has no hands but yours etc.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that if I pray for something for long enough, I always figure out eventually what God is trying to tell me in response.

Interesting idea, but I think it also fails. If God tells you and declines to tell me, have I failed in praying rightly? Nicely? or what? I always wondered what happened, say, to Esau after Jacob swindles him. Doesn't get the blessing and just goes out of the story to live in sorrow somewhere, knowing God doesn't favour him? I guess Jesus had special disciples too?

I don't think it can work that way. It has to be that we make up our minds, trying as best as we can to discern God's way as best as possible, and then muddle through to a choice, or get supported by the fact of trying to form ourselves to what we (or I, I should not speak for others, some of you may have much more insight) understand of God. And we could be wrong. Weirdly, it is okay to try yet again. But this is a bit different than asking for something, which by it's nature cannot be granted unless to all, such as praying for safety, healing from illness and stuff like that.

I am grateful for the informative responses.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that if I pray for something for long enough, I always figure out eventually what God is trying to tell me in response.
Interesting idea, but I think it also fails. If God tells you and declines to tell me, have I failed in praying rightly?

In my opinion, God answers whenever we pray. The reason I usually take so long to answer is that I'm not very good at understanding the answers. I spend 6-9 months praying for guidance in my two areas of my life before realizing that the answer was that answer to one of them was the answer I'd been not wanting to hear and the answer to the other was 'sure, just wait a couple months until it's not intensely impractical!'

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose I never thought that God would give me a parking space, or cure my flu, and I was always puzzled by people who seemed to think that he would.

We are talking about different concepts of God really. I find the idea of God 'intervening' bizarre, not because he doesn't, but because he is here all the time. So what would he intervene in? Some kind of non-God, I suppose? I don't get that.

Frankly, this sounds to me like an internalisation of some theological opinion, not like your "natural" reaction. Your first sentence demonstrates that you also are a typical human being who understands to some extent how the world currently is, and has an opinion how the world ought to be. Intercessory prayer is not addressing some kind of "non-God" space in the universe, but simply the difference between your personal "ought" and "is". It would be nice for you if God gave you a parking space or cured your flu - with in practice various levels of niceness for different wants and needs, from the convenient to the life-saving. Intercessory prayer is simply a reflection of the fact that you are a self-guided intelligent being, not just some puppet whose strings God is pulling.

In my experience, God always grants something in response to my intercessory prayers. Often I can eventually recognise that what God grants is good for me, occasionally so because it is what I asked for originally. The best way of asking God for something is unsurprisingly exemplified in the Psalms. After stating some want, they invariably transit to some affirmation of God's power, sovereignty, goodness, ... This provides the proper perspective. There is nothing wrong with asking for a world that is more like we think it ought to be, as long as we do not lose sight of whose call that is.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

IngoB

Well, my natural reaction to your post is that it is so alien to me, that I can hardly understand a word you are saying. Ah well.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

C S Lewis wrote: I pray. I pray constantly. Not to change God, but to change me.

(This is a paraphrase.)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, my natural reaction to your post is that it is so alien to me, that I can hardly understand a word you are saying. Ah well.

Then you are either possessed by a demon or an alien being in human meat disguise. If the former, I recommend exorcism. If the latter, I recommend to leave earth before the MIB catch up with you.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
C S Lewis wrote: I pray. I pray constantly. Not to change God, but to change me.

(This is a paraphrase.)

How does it work when there has been a disaster? A criminal attack? To accept the disaster? To accept the crime? Really?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not to accept anything but to ponder how one might mitigate the effects.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye, really. In the face of Nairobi. Syria. The brokenness of others God has put before me. My own decrepitude. All will be well. His Kingdom come.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not to accept anything but to ponder how one might mitigate the effects.

Not bad in concept. I'm working on the practice. Taken me decades for one thing, and it still haunts me, angers me, and then resonates with subsequent smitings.

In the beginning there was the Word. How about in the end, is there also the Word? But the Word is merely Comforting Words, say resembling those of compline: hide me under the shadow of thy wings, if you only would...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, my natural reaction to your post is that it is so alien to me, that I can hardly understand a word you are saying. Ah well.
Then you are either possessed by a demon or an alien being in human meat disguise. If the former, I recommend exorcism. If the latter, I recommend to leave earth before the MIB catch up with you.

And you strike me as very blinkered. But there you are, if it works for you, be content.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

no prophet, I have no systematic theory of God's will, nor would I want one. God is not a machine. I am grateful to God that so many of my prayers have been answered in the affirmative. I have prayed for you.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my experience, God always grants something in response to my intercessory prayers. Often I can eventually recognise that what God grants is good for me, occasionally so because it is what I asked for originally. The best way of asking God for something is unsurprisingly exemplified in the Psalms. After stating some want, they invariably transit to some affirmation of God's power, sovereignty, goodness, ... This provides the proper perspective. There is nothing wrong with asking for a world that is more like we think it ought to be, as long as we do not lose sight of whose call that is.

Although I've been granted what I've asked for more than occasionally, I would echo this.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my experience, God always grants something in response to my intercessory prayers. Often I can eventually recognise that what God grants is good for me, occasionally so because it is what I asked for originally. The best way of asking God for something is unsurprisingly exemplified in the Psalms. After stating some want, they invariably transit to some affirmation of God's power, sovereignty, goodness, ... This provides the proper perspective. There is nothing wrong with asking for a world that is more like we think it ought to be, as long as we do not lose sight of whose call that is.

I hadn't either seen or coded this.

Ingo, I don't understand. Something is always granted? Really? And it is good for you? Have you ever prayed for something positive and all that's been granted is suffering and sorrow? Must we wait to die for answers? Or are we better to form ourselves to the lived reality. I don't mean to single you out and apologise if you're not okay with using your post as a vehicle to pursue this. But...

I have come to feel and believe that the "God always answers" group maybe hasn't quite dealt with what some of the rest of us have. Dunno. I just find that the most important prayer of my life, that for protection of my children, which we'd said at breakfast as was our custom at the time, was answered with one of then nearly being murdered about an hour and a half later, followed by the dragged out court process, and, it's hard to believe so much time has passed, but years of therapy and recycling through the pain. I'm not getting where God's answer is in such an example. Which is why I think such ideas are traps. I didn't get to this reasoning in 1975-76 with somewhat parallel experiences to myself alone, and kick myself to think that I needed nearly 35 years to really 'get' it, and my belief in intercessory practice harmed my family, may God forgive me. You see, God's answer to something more than 3 decades ago was something I didn't understand, if indeed God does answer. Better is that God does not, and we're both off the hook.

I have come to think that God's answer (if there's one to had) to the prayers that morning of just more than 2 years ago (and the 33 years ago) was to lead me to reject the idea of intercession at all. Terribly, awfully, God-damn me please, if indeed God is involved like you suggest, then starkly, I have been left a choice that either God does not answer prayers of asking, or I must reject God and turn away completely. Being myself in these scenarios, evidently one of the damned, because unlike those who receive answers, I get smited instead by evil.

More better can I take the healthy ideas as posted by Cliffdweller above and feel my terror, desperate grief and anger subsiding. God does not answer, God accompanies, much as Jesus accompanied the 2 others crucified with him, even the one who rejected him. Now that I can go with.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I have come to feel and believe that the "God always answers" group maybe hasn't quite dealt with what some of the rest of us have. Dunno. I just find that the most important prayer of my life, that for protection of my children, which we'd said at breakfast as was our custom at the time, was answered with one of then nearly being murdered about an hour and a half later, followed by the dragged out court process, and, it's hard to believe so much time has passed, but years of therapy and recycling through the pain. I'm not getting where God's answer is in such an example.

Most of us probably haven't dealt with the same circumstances as you describe here, but whether we have felt same intensity of pain is unknowable. Perhaps God's answer is the 'nearly'. What did you expect life to be? What basis have you for expecting anything but the constant terror of death, and then its arrival? You have more than that, for the time being. Thank God.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Which is why I think such ideas are traps. I didn't get to this reasoning in 1975-76 with somewhat parallel experiences to myself alone, and kick myself to think that I needed nearly 35 years to really 'get' it, and my belief in intercessory practice harmed my family, may God forgive me. You see, God's answer to something more than 3 decades ago was something I didn't understand, if indeed God does answer. Better is that God does not, and we're both off the hook.

God isn't on your, or anyone's, hook. I thought you didn't think God cared what happens to your family, so why should God care how your beliefs harmed them? You can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

no prophet

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The idea that God always answers is interesting from various points of view. For one thing, it seems self-fulfilling. If you believe that, then whatever ensues, say a vast silence, or a tiny silence, or a squeak, is an answer. Or you might feel that you have been rejected - also an answer.

I can see how an atheist might intervene here, and ask the question, how does that differ from not being answered? I suppose one difference is that you feel you have been answered, so fair enough. As IngoB says, that's nice!

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
My experiences have led me to consider that for a half century I kept believing that God answered prayers, and then I finally accumulated enough evidence to understand it was the coping and support alone that were granted, nothing tangible. I now feel upset with those who led me to believe such things, and misled, both by clergy and lay people. Their notions led me and mine to the brink.

I am sympathetic, but were the people who misled you actually malicious or just dumb?

Because I've heard a lot of fellow Christians say really stupid, insensitive things. I have often said stupid, insensitive things myself. [Hot and Hormonal]

And if that behaviour caused anybody else to stumble and lose their faith, I guess I will answer for that. [Frown]

Anyway, when I hear a fellow Christian say something stupid, I get cross with them - not God. Or cross with myself if I'm the stupid one.

But I don't know of anyone who tried to mislead anyone else deliberately. Not that you were saying that, of course. [Smile]

As for the topic, does God answer prayer, I believe He does. Other folk are free to find that delusional.

Nine years ago I was threatened on my street by a man with a knife. He took my bag and other stuff at knifepoint. Yeah, that was scary. After the police came, I phoned my vicar to tell him what had happened. He prayed with me on the phone and I felt a great sense of peace. So much so that I told the police that I wouldn't be needing counselling from Victim Support. And I never did. I also felt a great deal of anger about what had happened, and I honestly believe that being angry helped. I didn't become depressed or traumatised after the incident.

So I expressed anger in a healthy way, and I was prayed for, and I felt a great sense of peace as a result. Psychological delusion? Placebo effect?

Maybe.

But I would rather pray than not.

Praying helped me last year, when a friend died tragically - both my prayers and the prayers of others.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Although some allusions have been made on this thread to liturgical intercessory prayer, the focus has primarily been on issues of personal intercession or petitionary prayers. However, since corporate intercession is an integral part of liturgical worship - very importantly so in views of the Eucharistic liturgy promulgated by the post-WWII liturgical renewal - what views do Shippies posting here have of the form, nature, role, and suitability of corporate intercession in the liturgies of the Church?

How do we reconcile a limited view of what intercessory or petitionary prayer can "accomplish" with the "work of the people" in the corporate offering of the Eucharist and other services of the gathered Church?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I go along with the views expressed by Boogie (above)

And would add in response to the assertion that "prayer changes things". Prayer doesnt change things. Prayer changes people and people change things.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Dunno. I just find that the most important prayer of my life, that for protection of my children, which we'd said at breakfast as was our custom at the time, was answered with one of then nearly being murdered about an hour and a half later, followed by the dragged out court process, and, it's hard to believe so much time has passed, but years of therapy and recycling through the pain. I'm not getting where God's answer is in such an example.

I suppose the problem with intercessory prayer is that if it's supposed to make everything okay then the world would already be in a state of paradise. Yet the world clearly isn't in such a state.

I pray badly, but in my prayers I prefer to think that God is with us in our pain and struggles, rather than that he lifts us out of them and makes everything wonderful. The Bible tells us that God is with us; it doesn't tell us that horrible things won't happen. So I suppose the best we can do is pray to be aware of God's love and power and victory at all times in every situation that we might meet.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

More better can I take the healthy ideas as posted by Cliffdweller above and feel my terror, desperate grief and anger subsiding. God does not answer, God accompanies, much as Jesus accompanied the 2 others crucified with him, even the one who rejected him. Now that I can go with.

Let me just clarify that I do believe God answers. In the horrible circumstances you described, which I can only imagine, His answer is to cry with us, "hell, no!" to the evil that was wrought. I would very much agree with you that that evil did not serve some mysterious "higher good" in God's inscrutable will. Rather, it is a result and evidence of the still-present evil among us.

I do believe in prayer. Wink calls it the primary "weapon of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 10:3-4, Eph. 6) by which we align ourselves with God's desire to oppose and resist such evils, and to take back territory from the enemy (Matt. 16:18).

quote:
, “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible… These shapers of the future are the intercessors, who call out of the future the longed-for new present.” (Walter Wink, The Powers that Be)

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Although some allusions have been made on this thread to liturgical intercessory prayer, the focus has primarily been on issues of personal intercession or petitionary prayers. However, since corporate intercession is an integral part of liturgical worship - very importantly so in views of the Eucharistic liturgy promulgated by the post-WWII liturgical renewal - what views do Shippies posting here have of the form, nature, role, and suitability of corporate intercession in the liturgies of the Church?

How do we reconcile a limited view of what intercessory or petitionary prayer can "accomplish" with the "work of the people" in the corporate offering of the Eucharist and other services of the gathered Church?

'Deliver us from evil' has a far greater implication than 'stop anything bad from happening to us.' Corporate prayer for God's intervention in life surely means please bring your goodness into this world, to overcome the evil we endure.

My neighbour used to brag that he didn't need to lock his doors as he prayed for protection on his house. I don't know whether he has been burgled yet as I moved, but I'm sure that prayer doesn't mean that we do nothing to look after ourselves, or that we expect a kind of superhero to turn up to see off the people who have decided to rob us. Rather, we hope for justice and strength from God, and service so that we can help to grow God's kingdom, on earth as it is in heaven.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QB]I do believe in prayer. Wink calls it the primary "weapon of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 10:3-4, Eph. 6) by which we align ourselves with God's desire to oppose and resist such evils, and to take back territory from the enemy (Matt. 16:18).

[QUOTE] , “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible… These shapers of the future are the intercessors, who call out of the future the longed-for new present.” (Walter Wink, The Powers that Be)

I may have a look at this author.

I might say that prayer via liturgy is what has been possible and possible. The Collect for Purity is what I've been on about for the entire time, but I find myself thumping along with other parts as well. Only wanting some ability.

Per some other comments, I'm not doing hares and hounds. Not any more.

I do think probably Christians in the general case do a relatively poor job of educating about prayer. As I was typing a response last night on something else, a nice fellow, member of the parish prayer team called, and I had to hurt his feelings and tell him that it wasn't okay to pray for me or the family. That only remembering us was comfortable. I would have dissimulated again, but he's asked enough times that I felt I owed him more of the truth.

I think some of my prayers have been juvenile, self centred and relatively stupid in the past. The stuff that people like Dawkins can mock. It has to do with personal decision making, not being led or God finding a purpose with me etc, but I have become committed further and moreso to nonviolence and I attempt to exterminate inner anger and other emotions that lead there.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I can well see why people come to the view that intercessions are not granted by God but I'm reluctant to finally take that view and I think that some of the standard answers are not as stupid as some may consider them.

Standard answer #1is that it is the prayer of the righteous man that avails much, and we are not all that righteous.

Standard answer #2 is that we often pray with little to no conviction that the request will be granted. Often we pray for things because it seems the only way of showing our concern. I would never say that was not a good thing, but I'm not so sure we would be answered.

And there are others. Are these just so much BS?

Plus, whilst I do not believe that Jesus had perfect knowledge of all things, the emphasis he puts on God as one who will grant requests is so prominent, as I read the gospels, that if I reject that, I don't see it making any sense to view him as someone with a unique insight into God.

That doesn't mean I have high expectation of receiving things I ask for, for which reason I don't make many specific requests.

[ 25. September 2013, 17:20: Message edited by: anteater ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I am now remembering something that goes a bit beyond coping and support, though is along those lines. My mother and a neighbour had to go to court in London to give evidence in a custody case, supporting a victim of domestic violence against a very unpleasant partner. They were both very nervous of what was to occur, expecting aggressive challenges. Back in their parish they knew there was a prayer group meeting during the trial time, praying for their support. In court, they found that their fear went, and they felt surrounded by a protection which enabled them to give evidence, which contributed to a satisfactory outcome. Both women felt the almost tangible support, comparing notes afterwards.

[ 25. September 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QB]I do believe in prayer. Wink calls it the primary "weapon of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 10:3-4, Eph. 6) by which we align ourselves with God's desire to oppose and resist such evils, and to take back territory from the enemy (Matt. 16:18).

[QUOTE] , “Prayer is never a private inner act disconnected from day-to-day realities. It is, rather, the interior battlefield where the decisive victory is won before any engagement in the outer world is even possible… These shapers of the future are the intercessors, who call out of the future the longed-for new present.” (Walter Wink, The Powers that Be)
I may have a look at this author.

... I have become committed further and moreso to nonviolence and I attempt to exterminate inner anger and other emotions that lead there.

You are gonna love Walter Wink.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Ingo, I don't understand. Something is always granted? Really? And it is good for you? Have you ever prayed for something positive and all that's been granted is suffering and sorrow? Must we wait to die for answers? Or are we better to form ourselves to the lived reality.

If I really ask for something, then indeed something is always granted - in the sense that there is a discernible change in the world or in myself in response, which I feel is not simply a pure happenstance in the world or an entirely self-imposed change of mind. Obviously there is no "objective" way to demonstrate that God has taken some specific action in these cases, but I'm not running some scientific experiment there. I do not see these things as a "proof of God", rather given my prior belief in God I'm happy to interpret certain events in my life this way. In fact, this is perhaps the primary way in which I think God "talks" to me, through the "sign language" of the world or me changing rather than as some kind of disembodied voice. And yes, more often then not I can see some good in the changes that correspond to my requests. Though this often is a matter of time passing, as my evaluations of past events do change in the light of new experiences, and sometimes drastically so.

I happen to think that I have a fairly weak faith, and God is generous with testing it not too harshly. However, I've been seriously injured, I've been threatened with a complete collapse of my career and livelihood, I've had to deal with deep loneliness and desperately failing relationships, etc. So while I certainly don't think that I've been hit with the fullness of human suffering and sorrow, indeed am considerably above average lucky all things considered, I've not developed my opinion in splendid isolation from trouble. Christianity is the religion of the cross, not of the lottery win. But if God grants you a way of dealing with the suffering and sorrow that you would not have found otherwise, then that too is an answer to prayer.

We must indeed wait for death to see more than through a glass darkly. But we can do that at least, and I think we often do not want to see, rather than being unable to see. I'm not sure what you mean by forming ourselves to lived reality, but I'm certainly not advocating some kind of prayer-based delusional approach to life, which expects God to provide all manner of exceptions to what is the case. However, I would say that it is often not obvious what really is reality or how one could conform to it. Pragmatism has its own naiveté, and praying to God can be an acknowledgment of not knowing what is going on, and/or not knowing what to do about it. Often enough it is reasonable to leave things to a higher power, because quite frankly our own powers are weak and corrupted.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I just find that the most important prayer of my life, that for protection of my children, which we'd said at breakfast as was our custom at the time, was answered with one of then nearly being murdered about an hour and a half later, followed by the dragged out court process, and, it's hard to believe so much time has passed, but years of therapy and recycling through the pain. I'm not getting where God's answer is in such an example. Which is why I think such ideas are traps.

I do not wish to make light of your experience and your pain. However, in this case we can even stick to an entirely "prosaic" interpretation. Your child after all was not murdered, so maybe that precisely was due to God's protection in response to your prayers. It certainly is something to give thanksgivings to God about... Let's be clear, this world is not paradise, and I'm not talking about some kind of guarantee by God of a comfortable existence here and now. There is nothing in this world that speaks against your child being murdered, but he or she wasn't. Just because you were used to the world being kinder does not mean that this is some kind of level of normal operations that God can be expected to maintain anyway. (I'll freely admit that I say this from a theoretical perspective, I've not had anything that bad happen to me, and I hope it never will... But I feel it is a valid point, even if I could not hold fast to it if - God forbid - something of that magnitude happened to me.)

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I didn't get to this reasoning in 1975-76 with somewhat parallel experiences to myself alone, and kick myself to think that I needed nearly 35 years to really 'get' it, and my belief in intercessory practice harmed my family, may God forgive me.

How did it harm your family? I do not understand. Did you consciously send your child out into danger, believing that your prayer would provide a magic shield? (I do not mean to be insulting, I just have no idea what you could mean here.)

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I have come to think that God's answer (if there's one to had) to the prayers that morning of just more than 2 years ago (and the 33 years ago) was to lead me to reject the idea of intercession at all.

Again, I'm sorry for dealing with your pain at the level of analysis, but this is Purgatory, not All Saints. This would be a non sequitur even if your child had been murdered (rather than saved, which does allow an interpretation of God actually answering your prayer against the "non-prayer" outcome of death). If one of your prayers does not get fulfilled in a literal sense, it does not follow that none of them will be, or that such prayers are generally illicit.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Being myself in these scenarios, evidently one of the damned, because unlike those who receive answers, I get smited instead by evil.

If everybody who gets smitten by evil in this world is doomed in eternity, then heaven is empty. The BVM had her child crucified and die, but she is Queen of Heaven. This world is not the place where all our tears will be dried, and I'm not proposing God as wish-answering machine who creates a bubble of heaven around those who pray to Him. That does not mean that God has withdrawn from this world and the faithful. His answers come in the context of this world, as rotten as it is.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
God does not answer, God accompanies, much as Jesus accompanied the 2 others crucified with him, even the one who rejected him. Now that I can go with.

God did not "accompany" the one who rejected Him, other than by being in his physical vicinity. And God did answer - even audibly - and grant the wish of the one who followed Him. Of course, the "good thief" made a perfect, other-worldly request. But God is used to dealing with our imperfection, hence I believe He will indulge us even where we are not that saintly in asking.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea that God always answers is interesting from various points of view. For one thing, it seems self-fulfilling.

The idea that God always answers gives me power over God. If I pray then God has got to do something - an idea which is at odds with the idea of a sovereign God.

But I find I can't accept the idea of a God who does not answer, either, nor of a God who cannot answer. And an arbitrary God, healing here and withholding there is a cruel God, not a God of love.

As for a God who doesn't change things in response to prayer, who wants to believe in a powerless God?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God answers with a nod, a smile, tears, understanding, anger, hope, disappointment, sympathy, empathy, encouragement.

Anything else is even more subjective.

I do claim enlightenment. Experience. Understanding. Acceptance. Inclusion.

In the February of 2009 I was having a great evening, walking across the deep snow of Victoria Park, listening to C. Baxter Kruger's sublime neo-orthodoxy on MP3, going home to my wife.

That night I trashed the car. A month later I was battered in the same park for being a good Samaritan. A month later my daughter attempted suicide. A month later my marriage was over and I lost my home.

What was granted in response to prayer?

The love of God. In the suicidal grief that followed, in my being bullied at work, in intrusive thinking.

I like God powerless. That's how He defeats all power.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

(aside)

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God did not "accompany" the one who rejected Him, other than by being in his physical vicinity.

How could you know that?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What an odd, wooden, heterodox idea.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God did not "accompany" the one who rejected Him, other than by being in his physical vicinity.
How could you know that?

By reading Luke 23? Christ neither answers the "bad thief", nor corrects the instant rebuke he gets from the "good thief". He answers the "good thief" promptly and positively though. You can make of that what you will, I know what I make of it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God did not "accompany" the one who rejected Him, other than by being in his physical vicinity.
How could you know that?
By reading Luke 23? Christ neither answers the "bad thief", nor corrects the instant rebuke he gets from the "good thief". He answers the "good thief" promptly and positively though. You can make of that what you will, I know what I make of it.

Jesus did not answer the "bad" thief's snarky request to be rescued (which would have interfered with Jesus' atoning sacrifice). Whether that signifies that Jesus did not "accompany" him (whatever that might mean) is speculative. We really can't know.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Ingo: Thanks for your clarification. Although I am well educated (I have BA, MA and PhD), I am far from cerebral or living within thoughts about my life and that of my family. I get the theory and the temporary deflection or comfort that the ideas can bring, but it all fails in the experience of it. It makes sense in the sense of good rhetoric and explanation, but fails within my emotions and spirit.

In answer, we came to believe something manifestly false, and it did us all harm intellectually and emotionally. That belief was not trite nor the simple horse-trading and making of deals, it wasn't a transaction. It was at the level of basic trust, the trust that all will be well in some way. Did the disciples really get resurrection the night of the crucifixion? But that's an intellectual question, not one of the affect.

It seems to me that there is a different quality to losses involving humans than of the things human have, such as assets, relationships, careers. I detect this at least for myself.

I get degrees of harm argument, but it's rather weak. Sure, my child also did not get HIV, hepatitis, nor HPV etc from this, but the comparison doesn't help. To say something could be worse, doesn't make the actual less, it makes the comparison seem inappropriate.

If I do venture in the intellectual direction with this, I do see that the algorithm of prayer answers must be either nonexistent or concerns the use of people as pawns in some giant Godly game, and have had to reject it or walk away from God completely. I do sometimes soften it in my mind as the former - the inscrutable - but find that to be inconsistent with faith, as mentioned discussed above.

I am at the point of arguing that it is against the nature of God to intervene into the world, in our lives, except as comfort alone. Along the lines of Psalm 46.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

If I do venture in the intellectual direction with this, I do see that the algorithm of prayer answers must be either nonexistent or concerns the use of people as pawns in some giant Godly game, and have had to reject it or walk away from God completely. I do sometimes soften it in my mind as the former - the inscrutable - but find that to be inconsistent with faith, as mentioned discussed above.

I am at the point of arguing that it is against the nature of God to intervene into the world, in our lives, except as comfort alone. Along the lines of Psalm 46.

Again, I think a third (albeit controversial and some will say heretical) option is that God's sovereignty does not equate omni-control, that God created the universal in only somewhat constrained freedom, which means the freedom (for humans but also possibly for otherworldly beings or forces) to choose either evil or good. That evil clearly impacts the world as we now see it.

I would agree with you that it's important for our theology to match our experience. When we feel compelled to adopt a theology disconnected from our experiences of the world, it does something to our faith-- as you have seen. It causes doubt, of course, but that doesn't worry me-- doubt can be healthy. My concern is that it disconnects us from God, and it disconnects our faith from our Real Life. If our faith survives such a disconnect at all, it will be forced to exist in it's own little corner, far apart from the gritty (or horrific) realities of life.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
As for a God who doesn't change things in response to prayer, who wants to believe in a powerless God?

I'm confused (not for the first time).

Doesn't change in response to prayer mean that at least one of the pre- and post- prayer situations was imperfect/immoral/sub-optimal? And wouldn't a perfect/moral god get it right first time? Why would a loving, caring god not act to relieve pain and suffering without being implored by some undetermined quorum to do so? Would god reduce the morality of a situation because someone (inadvertently) asks it to do so?

Doesn't Matt 6:11 suggest that, at worst, the god of love may not bother/may capriciously refuse to provide for you unless you ask it to do so and, at best, that god has a self-esteem problem?

I'm sure that there are many answers - do any of them amount to anything other than "God moves in a mysterious way, we shouldn't question god and you'll find out once you're dead"?

This is the sort of conundrum that, to me, reduces faith to servility. You may have guessed that I don't do servility. Can you see why atheism is not only simpler but inevitable for some of us?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, I think a third (albeit controversial and some will say heretical) option is that God's sovereignty does not equate omni-control, that God created the universal in only somewhat constrained freedom, which means the freedom (for humans but also possibly for otherworldly beings or forces) to choose either evil or good. That evil clearly impacts the world as we now see it.

I'm not sure what the heresy could be, but I hold it if it is one. I see this as an apparent requirement: that the world/universe appear to be absent of God only so that we have the complete freedom (the awful, bloody complete freedom) to do and think and believe what we will. One little miracle or answered prayer, and I now have no freedom not to believe. While I think it true and it does appeal to my thoughts, it greatly offend my sentiments.

quote:
cliffdweller

I would agree with you that it's important for our theology to match our experience. When we feel compelled to adopt a theology disconnected from our experiences of the world, it does something to our faith-- as you have seen. It causes doubt, of course, but that doesn't worry me-- doubt can be healthy. My concern is that it disconnects us from God, and it disconnects our faith from our Real Life. If our faith survives such a disconnect at all, it will be forced to exist in it's own little corner, far apart from the gritty (or horrific) realities of life.

There's no half way or half measures, it's either God or the opposite, which I think is not atheism, rather, it's a replacement or rather a series of pseudo-replacements. I'm unwilling to tolerate a pathway in life that is narrowed into a corner, it's either authentic and complete or it's into the dustbin.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I get the theory and the temporary deflection or comfort that the ideas can bring, but it all fails in the experience of it. It makes sense in the sense of good rhetoric and explanation, but fails within my emotions and spirit.

The step from "fails within my emotions and spirit" to "it all fails in the experience of it" is the false one. I have experiences, too, and it doesn't fail according to them. There is nothing per se that privileges your experiences over mine; they do not speak more to the point we are discussing just because they were more horrible. And if we want to resolve conflicting experiences, then we are seeking for the "sense of good rhetoric and explanation". If I have this sense on my side, then your experiences drove you away from what is sensible. If you have this sense on your side, then my experience was insufficient to let me discover the truth. Be that as it may, we will not decide what is what by throwing our experiences at each other. Experiences are ultimately incommunicable. Sense however can be shared, even if we find that difficult sometimes.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In answer, we came to believe something manifestly false, and it did us all harm intellectually and emotionally.

Well, if you believed that because you prayed that your child should be protected, no harm could come to him or her, then I agree that you believed something manifestly false, and I can see that it would have been a nasty shock to discover it in such a cruel manner. But I repeat, I'm not at all claiming anything like that. I do not believe in God as a kind of super-natural insurance against hardship, or as wish-fulfilling prosperity generator, or anything along these lines. If you reject these sort of things, I'm with you. But it appears that you've "over-rejected" in a kind of allergic reaction, and have ended up with a distant God whose only effect on us and our lives is according to what we attribute to Him in a kind of abstractly benevolent way. I think that is also manifestly false, though admittedly I do not know how to "prove" the manifestations to you.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It was at the level of basic trust, the trust that all will be well in some way. Did the disciples really get resurrection the night of the crucifixion? But that's an intellectual question, not one of the affect.

It is however basically what we mean by saying that we are Christian that we draw on the whole experience of the disciples, not just the darkness of the crucifixion but also the light of resurrection. It is in some sense the work we have to do as Christians to turn this insight into affect, this understanding into wisdom. Again, I do appreciate fully that different people have different mountains to climb there. But just because I may have a molehill and you may have Mt Everest does not mean that I'm wrong in saying that the goal is to get to the top. I believe that your basic trust is fundamentally right, even though you were not lucky enough to have if realized sufficiently here and now. "Pie in the sky" is not a delusion, but the basic truth. That some people get some pie on earth, whereas others do not, is not contradicting that.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I get degrees of harm argument, but it's rather weak. Sure, my child also did not get HIV, hepatitis, nor HPV etc from this, but the comparison doesn't help. To say something could be worse, doesn't make the actual less, it makes the comparison seem inappropriate.

With all due respect, no, it is fully appropriate that you count your blessings. Your child is still with you, and lives without these diseases. Perhaps the Joneses can count many more blessings than you can, perhaps you count a lot less blessings than most. But you are counting blessings there, and as I understand you are counting more than necessarily could have been expected in the situation. Now, you can cry out to God about your hardships, the unfair comforts of the Joneses, etc. and you will be in good company, Psalms and all. Still, any good you have is a grace and at some point and in some way you must be able to find back to that. Because it is true, but frankly, also because our mind becomes what it dwells on and it is dangerous to keep it stuck on evil and despair.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
If I do venture in the intellectual direction with this, I do see that the algorithm of prayer answers must be either nonexistent or concerns the use of people as pawns in some giant Godly game, and have had to reject it or walk away from God completely.

I'm sorry, but intellectually that is nonsense. Again, only on some conception of God as wish-fulfilling robot can one derive some necessary conflict between the various contradictory wishes of humanity. But I've never proposed that, and I feel that you stick to this straw man simply because it is easy to reject.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am at the point of arguing that it is against the nature of God to intervene into the world, in our lives, except as comfort alone. Along the lines of Psalm 46.

I see nothing in Psalm 46, or elsewhere in scripture, that would support such an interpretation.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We're in two different worlds, it would seem IngoB.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
This is the sort of conundrum that, to me, reduces faith to servility. You may have guessed that I don't do servility. Can you see why atheism is not only simpler but inevitable for some of us?

First, "non serviam" (I will not serve) is indeed a very old and common reaction to God. It never is "inevitable" though, it always is a choice. Second, your "conundrum" is nothing but bending the problem of evil into this. That always has been the only effective argument atheism has.

Third, however, why not simply take a different perspective? This world is us taking a qualifying exam for the citizenship of heaven. Actually, it is us re-sitting the exam, after flunking the first one. God has already gone around distributing a universal cheat sheet. We are now discussing to what extent He on request gives hints to individual candidates or even modifies their questionnaire, to make it easier on them to pass. It remains an exam though, and those are never really pleasant.

Finally, if your concept of the goodness of God is that God will give you all you want, then clearly God is not good. That's not a particularly challenging thought for (traditional) Christianity though.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

My problem is not with the goodness of God but with the 'almightiness' of God.

I cant believe God is almighty (in spite of the Almighty God prefix to many prayers) since I believe God's power to be constrained.

Constrained by His character (therefore he cannot command genocide etc)

Constrained by the freedom of choice and action we all have and which he respects.

Constrained by his purpose

It could be argued that this renders God pretty powerless. But these constraints are self-imposed and that imposition isitself an act of power.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This discussion reminds me irresistibly of the Jewish idea of 'tzimtzum', which means that God contracts his infinite light in order to provide a space for creation. Thus the creative act by God begins with a concealment or an exile.

These ideas are picked up by some Christians, for example, Simone Weil talks of 'God's presence in his absence', and somewhere I think she talks of God's absence being absolutely essential to the creation.

It also has interesting implications for the famous 'divine hiddenness' topic in philosophy.

Of course, atheists might leap upon it with glee!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

Third, however, why not simply take a different perspective? This world is us taking a qualifying exam for the citizenship of heaven. Actually, it is us re-sitting the exam, after flunking the first one. God has already gone around distributing a universal cheat sheet. We are now discussing to what extent He on request gives hints to individual candidates or even modifies their questionnaire, to make it easier on them to pass. It remains an exam though, and those are never really pleasant.

Agh! All metaphors for the atonement fall short somehow, but this one falls short on so many levels I can no longer see what exactly it's bringing to the table. Aaaagh...

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Just to clarify a couple of things, which I really should have posted above instead of the one liner re different worlds. Psalm 46 is about comfort. The words themselves and how they express it, is about God being there for comfort. It is thanks to some shipmates that I turned to the Psalms and started to understand experientially the comfort.

About atonement, I am rather uncertain about the various theories of it, but it seems to me that God can grant salvation in any way, at any time, and needs rather little from us about it, whatever exactly salvation is (there being so much mystery and seeing dimly; I wouldn't mind a little more in that direction within the non-eternity on earth). I suspect it is available to all in some way, just as the comfort and companion on the journey is available to all. It is better to live within that than outside of it, or so I have found.

Thanks quetzalcoatl for the post on "tzimtzum", which does seem to put a name on something rather important.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

no prophet

I was holding back there, as some of the ideas in Jewish mysticism are interesting and kind of beautiful, and one could wax lyrical about them. However, somewhat o/t.

I think tzimtzum is quite beautiful really - the contraction of infinite light!

I suppose many religions grapple with the apparent paradox of the divine exile, or whatever you call it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0