Thread: Intercession 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=029169
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
How do you stop intercessory prayer from being reduced to the mere challenge of completeness? (i.e. How well can I remember everything I've said I'll prayer for? How complete can I get the list of everything else I ought to be praying for?)

If the answer is: write it all down in a list, how do you then stop intercessory prayer from becoming a process of "dialing up" God and then "willing" the data package (the list) down the line?

Built into both these questions is the implied question: what *else* is meant to be going on here? Is the very act of assuming the attitude of prayer, and thinking "I am going to pray for X, Y, Z" pleasing to God, because it is an act of faith? Or does the quality of the "connection" matter more than what you're asking for - after all, He knows our thoughts and our hearts?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
'Quality of the connection' is meaningless. Have you read this study? The two most likely results of intercessory prayer are (1) nothing or (2) making a person worse off. Knowing that, why bother?

If you still want to persist, consider your comments about God already knowing your thoughts.

K.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Then why pray at all?

I'm not sure these studies tell us anything - other than, perhaps, to challenge an overly mechanical approach to these things.

However we cut it, we are invited to pray.

'... And prayer is more
Than an order of worlds, the conscious occupation
Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.'

T S Eliot, Little Gidding.

Whether we use a litany or go in for the 'Lord we really just ...' style of evangelical prayer, we are still exhorted to pray.

How it 'works', whether it 'works' and so on are secondary issues, I think. I don't pretend to know how or why any of it 'works' or not.

I'm not one for lists or for attempts to read meanings into the shadows on the wall of the cave ...

But I do pray.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
Divide your prayers into those which you feel are a duty and those which you desire. You can't embrace the machine/computer metaphor for the human soul and then look down on the idea of making lists.

On the few occasions I pray, I pray repeatedly for the same things. You can't pray for all the needs and I don't think that God even expects that (even if others or your own conscience may do). By the way, the human conscience, the internal hard-drive - can be faulty (even in Christians who are using the latest faith 10.0 software).

Prayer changes things.

Perhaps you need to ask someone who is good at getting their 'downloads' installed? Many of us are still at a loading screen.

[ 19. May 2015, 10:28: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then why pray at all?

I'm not sure these studies tell us anything - other than, perhaps, to challenge an overly mechanical approach to these things.

However we cut it, we are invited to pray.

'... And prayer is more
Than an order of worlds, the conscious occupation
Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.'

T S Eliot, Little Gidding.

Whether we use a litany or go in for the 'Lord we really just ...' style of evangelical prayer, we are still exhorted to pray.

How it 'works', whether it 'works' and so on are secondary issues, I think. I don't pretend to know how or why any of it 'works' or not.

I'm not one for lists or for attempts to read meanings into the shadows on the wall of the cave ...

But I do pray.
Whether it works is a secondary issue!!!??!!!!

Is this why Christianity is always 'user error'?
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
'Quality of the connection' is meaningless. Have you read this study? The two most likely results of intercessory prayer are (1) nothing or (2) making a person worse off. Knowing that, why bother?

I don't think the study looks at the effect on the petitioner (or the consequences of that effect).

It seems axiomatic that it would make me a more compassionate person to spend some time focused on the needs of others, and that me being more compassionate is good for society.

But utility aside, I suppose I am starting from the point that God exists and that God wants us to pray. Indeed, the gospels tell us explicitly that God wants us to petition.

Why does He want it?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Agreed about the petitioner. It's pretty clear that almost all types of contemplative prayer/meditation benefit (or at the very least do no harm) the one doing the praying/meditating.

K.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:

Perhaps you need to ask someone who is good at getting their 'downloads' installed? Many of us are still at a loading screen.
That's what I'm doing. I am sure there is someone on the Ship who is better at it than me. [Smile]
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
By the way, the study on intercessory prayer includes those who were aware of being prayed for and those who were not. The ones who fared the worst were those who were aware they were being prayed for. My caution, therefore, was against the sort of 'prayer ministry' type of intercessory prayer, rather than the "Dear Lord, please help Uncle Jack get better from his hernia operation.".

Sorry for the diversion.

K.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:

Perhaps you need to ask someone who is good at getting their 'downloads' installed? Many of us are still at a loading screen.
That's what I'm doing. I am sure there is someone on the Ship who is better at it than me. [Smile]
Oh, I see. Okay, well, I have had answered prayers in the past. Firstly you need to ask yourself if the specific prayers (whatever they may be) can only be answered by a miracle or if you can 'put legs under your prayers'. There are some prayers which you can play a part in and the way to get those answered is to work at them and trust that God is doing so too.

This joke contains a lot of wisdom:

'I prayed for years 'Lord, please let me win the lottery'. After 30 years of praying this prayer I finally heard a voice while I was praying. It said: 'Okay, okay, but at least buy a lottery ticket won't you!?''

However, some prayers can only be answered by a miracle and you can't 'put legs under' those prayers. So make like the persistent widow. I bet she made lists to remember what she wanted to say before the unjust judge.

Then keep praying - God likes persistence (based on this parable) so ignore those who say that prayer doesn't work. It does.

[ 19. May 2015, 11:08: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
What would you say is the rate of supernaturally answered prayer? One in a hundred? One a million? One in a billion? Is it more or less than one of these?

K.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What would you say is the rate of supernaturally answered prayer? One in a hundred? One a million? One in a billion? Is it more or less than one of these?

K.
Miracles? One in ten thousand? Most people say that miracles wouldn't be miracles if they were common.

[ 19. May 2015, 11:41: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
But there are going to be levels to supernaturally answered prayer. I'm not going to lie to you by saying that childbirth or a flower is a miracle, but many prayers do contain a level of supernatural involvement. To ignore that is to ignore reality.

[ 19. May 2015, 11:46: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
Just a thought, having read the STEP study referred to by K.

Those who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer had a worse record of complications. However, overall mortality and recovery between the cohorts was the same.

One could argue that it was a good job that those with more complications happened to have prayer. That their mortality and recovery rates were the same as other cohorts might just suggest that

a) the prayers were needed because of the complications

b)those prayers were answered (complications not leading to worse outcomes).

Just a thought - but you can extrapolate anything from statistics.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Or c) those who knew they were being prayed for trusted in God so much that they didn't bother to get medical help quickly and so developed complications.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
It's worth following through to read the various comments on the study in later issues of the Journal. Clearly there were various issues.

IME, the hardest thing to do is to take someone/thing off my prayer list. Somewhere I need to have faith that God goes on being concerned about people/situations even when my attention moves on from them.

I heard the other day about a book by David Wilkinson When I Pray, What Does God Do? which I really want to read on this subject.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
But there are going to be levels to supernaturally answered prayer. I'm not going to lie to you by saying that childbirth or a flower is a miracle, but many prayers do contain a level of supernatural involvement. To ignore that is to ignore reality.
I don't see how 'that' is 'to ignore reality', but let's leave that for a moment. Accepting your earlier comment about one in ten thousand prayers being answered, it would be very easy, then, to prove that God answers prayer by asking ten thousand Christians (OK, let's say one million, just to be sure we're ahead of the odds) to pray for the same thing (like a limb growing back) and see what happens.

K.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But utility aside, I suppose I am starting from the point that God exists and that God wants us to pray. Indeed, the gospels tell us explicitly that God wants us to petition.

Why does He want it?
Good question - especially as said God does absolutely nothing as a result ; anything that happpens will have natural causes, with no connection to any God.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
This raises an interesting question: how much evidence for the harmfulness of 'prayer ministry' would you need to stop taking part in it or condoning it?

K.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
This raises an interesting question: how much evidence for the harmfulness of 'prayer ministry' would you need to stop taking part in it or condoning it?

K.
Very good question. To truly evidence that prayer caused worse outcomes, you'd have to have a double blind random trial, so the patients and their medical teams would have to be unaware of whether they were in the prayed-for or not-prayed-for groups.

The people praying would have to be unaware of the nature of the trial they were part of (otherwise, some or all will, in any case, pray for the control group). And at that point I think you hit issues with the ethics of the trial.

Even if you could engage a group in prayer for some specific names, without telling them it was part of a double blind trial, you'd have to assume that the effects of all other prayers for both the prayed-for group and the control group were equal.

So I think I'm arriving at the conclusion that you'd never be able to get robust evidence that prayer is harmful, any more than you get evidence that prayer is beneficial for the prayee.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:


I heard the other day about a book by David Wilkinson When I Pray, What Does God Do? which I really want to read on this subject.
Thanks for the suggestion - yes, it does sound interesting.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
For myself I have used a number of methods to "keep track" of people I wish to pray for, people who have asked me to pray for them, etc. None of them have worked long-term, but that may be just an artifact of my personality or neurowiring. Currently I pray for categories of people (family, coworkers, students, "people who have asked me to pray for them," etc.), add "especially so-and-so" prayers if I think of them at the time, and end with a codicil of "and anybody whom I'm not remembering right now." Probably not the best I could do, but it's where I'm at right now and I hope God can work with it.

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
You can't embrace the machine/computer metaphor for the human soul and then look down on the idea of making lists.
Well said!

quote:
Whether it works is a secondary issue!!!??!!!!
I'd say that whether or not it works is not up to us. We're commanded to pray. We're not commanded to make our prayers "work." If we have prayed, we have done our part*. So yes, whether or not it works is a secondary issue when we're talking about our obligation to pray.

quote:
Is this why Christianity is always 'user error'?
What do you mean?

_______
*At least as concerns prayer; of course there's a lot more in life we're called to do than just pray.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
quote:
Is this why Christianity is always 'user error'?
I was just making a passing remark on the idea that if you don't get answered prayers or are not somehow living a 'victorious Christian life' (© VCL) that it is always considered to be the fault of the individual Christian in some way. In the same way that some companies will always blame consumers for any malfunctions or breakages.

[ 19. May 2015, 15:40: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
But there are going to be levels to supernaturally answered prayer. I'm not going to lie to you by saying that childbirth or a flower is a miracle, but many prayers do contain a level of supernatural involvement. To ignore that is to ignore reality.
I don't see how 'that' is 'to ignore reality', but let's leave that for a moment. Accepting your earlier comment about one in ten thousand prayers being answered, it would be very easy, then, to prove that God answers prayer by asking ten thousand Christians (OK, let's say one million, just to be sure we're ahead of the odds) to pray for the same thing (like a limb growing back) and see what happens.

K.
I didn't mean to be rude and the figure was fairly arbitrary.

An experiment wouldn't work because you haven't factored in Sod's Law to the whole experiment. Also, would God even want the whole prayer thing to be proved?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
to the OP re keeping track of praying: a relatively simple method is simply to pray at that moment that you are asked to pray. If at all feasible/ appropriate, when someone asks you to pray, sit down with them right then and there and pray with/for them. If it's not feasible or appropriate to pray out loud, pray silently at that moment. If, for example, you are reading an email request, stop for a moment and pray before sending your response-- which then can be in the present tense (I am praying) rather than a future promise.

I find when I do this I'm more likely to remember to pray for the person later. And I feel able to trust the Spirit on the matter, to bring it to my heart/mind if it's important that I "tarry" (as my tradition tends to say) in prayer.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Agreed about the petitioner. It's pretty clear that almost all types of contemplative prayer/meditation benefit (or at the very least do no harm) the one doing the praying/meditating.

K.
Indeed it does Psalms and Coping with Uncertainty: Religious Israeli Women's Responses to the 2006 Lebanon War. Abstract available if you click on the image on the right. I've seen the article. It indicates that belief in the effectiveness of praying the psalms has little to do with tangible benefit. Comfort is gained.

My question: why isn't this enough? And if there is indeed something happening among petitioner, who/what is prayed for and God, is it okay if we avoid too much claim for it? without too much focus on it? and no miraculous anything?
 
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :
 
To the OP:

Assuming God is omniscient, the purpose of prayer cannot be merely to inform Him of our problems. God could theoretically want us to pray merely because it pleases Him, but that seems implausible to me and contrary to Scripture.

I find the most likely explanation to be that prayer serves two main purposes. First, Scripture strongly supports the idea that prayer is not simply unidirectional, but has tangible effect. On the other hand, if God is just, why would He ask us to pray for something rather than just doing it regardless? The best explanation I can proffer is that to do otherwise would be to usurp the free will of Man. Thus, one purpose for prayer would be to ask Him of our own volition for His intervention.

Second, I suspect that, as you implied, prayer is also largely for our benefit, in that it helps us to care for others and remind us of their needs. This would make it spiritually helpful both individually to the prayor, and collectively to the Church and Humanity as a whole.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I'm one of those people for whom intercessory prayer is becoming increasingly pointless. It just doesn't seem to make much sense.
Asking God for specific things seems so selfish and pointless. God is not a fruit machine, where if you pull the handle in the right way, you'll get a jackpot.

One of the best books on prayer I have read remains "Be still and know" by Michael Ramsey. I particularly value this approach to prayer:
quote:
Prayer is “the act of being in God’s presence”

To be with God for a space. To be with God wondering, that is adoration. To be with God gratefully, that is thanksgiving. To be with God ashamed, that is contrition. To be with God with others on the heart, that is intercession. The secret is the quest of God’s presence: “Thy face Lord will I seek.”
For me, that makes sense. Prayer is being consciously in God's presence. I can then bring into that presence the people and situations I am concerned about. I don't have to ask for any particular thing - I can just bring them into God's presence and know that the love of God will envelope them as it envelopes me.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I pray for wisdom. I pray to get perspective. To work things out. To express my thanks, my feelings, my concerns. How does that harm me or anyone else? And yes I pray to acknowledge my failings. My sins.

[ 19. May 2015, 19:13: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Agreed about the petitioner. It's pretty clear that almost all types of contemplative prayer/meditation benefit (or at the very least do no harm) the one doing the praying/meditating.

K.
Indeed it does Psalms and Coping with Uncertainty: Religious Israeli Women's Responses to the 2006 Lebanon War. Abstract available if you click on the image on the right. I've seen the article. It indicates that belief in the effectiveness of praying the psalms has little to do with tangible benefit. Comfort is gained.

My question: why isn't this enough? And if there is indeed something happening among petitioner, who/what is prayed for and God, is it okay if we avoid too much claim for it? without too much focus on it? and no miraculous anything?
So long as you make no claims about Christianity—because the evidence is virtually the same across religions and no religions. It's about meditation. So what ever the evidence suggests, it has nothing to do with the truth claims of Christianity being unique.

K.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry Alyosha, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, probably because I didn't express myself clearly enough.

Mousethief has expressed what I was trying to say better than I did. We are exhorted to pray.That's all I know. How it works is beyond my ken.

I don't have a problem with lists or with people fasting and whatever else but I can't see how we can make our prayers more effective by screwing our faces up and going 'gggnnnnnnn ...'

You get some daft stuff when people try to quantify these things.

I had a friend in South Africa who passed around this so-called prophecy before the Iraq War saying that if God could find 100,000 women who were prepared to pray then war would be averted. Then what happened? The war came.

What went wrong? Did God fail to find 100,000 women. Was there one short? Two short? 527 short?
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
quote:
I particularly value this approach to prayer:
quote:
Prayer is “the act of being in God’s presence”

To be with God for a space. To be with God wondering, that is adoration. To be with God gratefully, that is thanksgiving. To be with God ashamed, that is contrition. To be with God with others on the heart, that is intercession. The secret is the quest of God’s presence: “Thy face Lord will I seek.”
For me, that makes sense. Prayer is being consciously in God's presence. I can then bring into that presence the people and situations I am concerned about. I don't have to ask for any particular thing - I can just bring them into God's presence and know that the love of God will envelope them as it envelopes me. [/QB]
This.

GG
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
How do you stop intercessory prayer from being reduced to the mere challenge of completeness? (i.e. How well can I remember everything I've said I'll prayer for? How complete can I get the list of everything else I ought to be praying for?)
Two somewhat misdirected questions, IMHO.

1. If someone can ask me to pray, they can pray with me right then. If they don't want to take the time to pray, why should I? No list accumulated. Yes there are exceptions to anything, but prayer isn't supposed to be a chore, it's an invitation to spend time with God.

Phone call, "pray for me (or my Mom)" - you say "OK" and start praying out loud right on that phone call. Written request, pray while reading it.

Prayers don't need to be repeated again and again, God heard you the first time. No need to accumulate a long list to be prayed over again every night.

2. This really comes first but where are you getting your sense of what you "ought" to pray for? From God or from the news? Why not instead the things you personally see and hear that didn't get big publicity?

Anyway, it's God's job to save the world, not ours. Our job is to - how is it worded, love God and enjoy God forever? If approaching God - prayer - is a burden we aren't enjoying God so we aren't doing our job right.

Try putting aside the list, ask God what to pray about, and follow your nose. More relaxing and I think more effective because you are praying about things you genuinely care about, not things you couldn't even remember unless you saw the list.

YMMV
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I'm one of those people for whom intercessory prayer is becoming increasingly pointless. It just doesn't seem to make much sense.


Asking God for specific things seems so selfish and pointless. God is not a fruit machine, where if you pull the handle in the right way, you'll get a jackpot.

One of the best books on prayer I have read remains "Be still and know" by Michael Ramsey. I particularly value this approach to prayer:
quote:
Prayer is “the act of being in God’s presence”

To be with God for a space. To be with God wondering, that is adoration. To be with God gratefully, that is thanksgiving. To be with God ashamed, that is contrition. To be with God with others on the heart, that is intercession. The secret is the quest of God’s presence: “Thy face Lord will I seek.”
For me, that makes sense. Prayer is being consciously in God's presence. I can then bring into that presence the people and situations I am concerned about. I don't have to ask for any particular thing - I can just bring them into God's presence and know that the love of God will envelope them as it envelopes me.
I think this experience of God's presence is key to our entire spiritual lives. But I wouldn't discount the first part re intercessory prayer so quickly. Sure, God doesn't need our prayers to get things done. But there seems to be a pretty clear stream in Scripture that supports the notion of intercessory prayer and even seems to suggest that it is related in some sort of causal way with some sort of result-- i.e. that prayer at least sometimes, changes things.

We may not know why that is so, but we can see that being a part of that-- having the experience of things being changed thru prayer-- is a significant spiritual experience. And not unlike the latter spiritual experience you describe-- the practice of just sitting in his presence. In fact, the two fit beautifully together-- each one informs and compliments the other. It is thru our experiences that we learn-- whether we're talking simple arithmetic or scientific exploration. The same is true of God-- through our experience of prayer, including intercessory prayer-- we come to know God, to know God's heart. When we pray big-- ask for things that feel a bit scary even to articulate much less hope for-- we have a chance to see something amazing.

Of course, if we take risks in prayer-- which intercessory prayer always is-- we risk being disappointed or heartbroken. So we have to have a theology big enough to encompass both. Which is also part of the learning experience that is intercessory prayer.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I can't justify it logically, but I do pray, and I pray for things great and small which regularly gets me flamed on Ship. At the moment it's my sister's ovarian cancer, but in the same prayer it could just as easily be my nervousness at the thought of a meeting tomorrow, or the ever-scorned need for a parking place.

I figure--Jesus taught us to pray for our daily bread; he must know what he's doing; he calls us to become like little children, and we all know that they ask incessantly for anything they need and want, great or small, without any shame. I will do the same. Why should I try to be dignified before God, who knows the truth about me already?

If the need for a parking space, or a paycheck, or whatever, is weighing heavy on my mind, I might as well admit the fact and tell God--and also ask him to straighten me out when my priorities are going wrong. I won't be able to do it myself. I know, I've tried.

As for the problem of evil--why God seems to answer some (frivolous) prayers and not other vastly more serious ones, yes, it bothers me and confuses me and all that. But it's not mine to give an answer to that, it's God's (if he chooses). If I refrain from praying for a parking spot or what-have-you, will that make God any more likely to answer someone else's prayers for a life to be spared? I don't think so. God is indeed not a fruit machine, and prayer is not a zero-sum game. What he chooses to give, he gives freely. What he chooses not to give--well, here we enter into mystery. I have faced it myself like everybody else. But I'm not going to stop asking because I don't have a fully-understood theory of prayer.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What he chooses not to give--well, here we enter into mystery. I have faced it myself like everybody else. But I'm not going to stop asking because I don't have a fully-understood theory of prayer.
So, many prayers are said for someone's safety. But, nevertheless terrible things happen to them which their family and community will never recover from. And God's non-answer is 'mystery'?

I can't buy that (and still believe in God)

My only answer is that God does not give us things, or answers to any prayers. God gives us Himself.

So, I pray to ask for more of God for me and others. That we will be more open to God and His ways. So I will do Intercessions in Church - but they are all along these lines. No point asking for God to give us things, or healing, or safety, or peace or anything else.

Of course peace etc may come to each of us when we draw close to God - if we are able. But what makes some more able than others? I don't know.

I can not believe in an arbitrary God, whether the name given to that inconsistency is 'mystery' or 'omnicience' or 'sovereinty' or anything else.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Rather then pray for healing, we usually pray that those treating are blessed with skills and compassion in carrying out their tasks, and so forth. Not for a result, but that X be supported in working for it and if it does not come about. If He wishes, He can perform a miracle, but I don't think it's for me to ask.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What he chooses not to give--well, here we enter into mystery. I have faced it myself like everybody else. But I'm not going to stop asking because I don't have a fully-understood theory of prayer.
So, many prayers are said for someone's safety. But, nevertheless terrible things happen to them which their family and community will never recover from. And God's non-answer is 'mystery'?

I can't buy that (and still believe in God)

My only answer is that God does not give us things, or answers to any prayers. God gives us Himself.

So, I pray to ask for more of God for me and others. That we will be more open to God and His ways. So I will do Intercessions in Church - but they are all along these lines. No point asking for God to give us things, or healing, or safety, or peace or anything else.

Of course peace etc may come to each of us when we draw close to God - if we are able. But what makes some more able than others? I don't know.

I can not believe in an arbitrary God, whether the name given to that inconsistency is 'mystery' or 'omnicience' or 'sovereinty' or anything else.
This is excellent. I remember seeing a list of things to pray for, on a college noticeboard, and it felt as if part of me died. As you say, it raises arbitrariness to a supreme principle. It reminds me of the Dice Man.

It also seems to miss the God who is here now, complete, loving, self-giving. But then it's not so nice to compete over spiritual methods.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

My only answer is that God does not give us things, or answers to any prayers. God gives us Himself.

So, I pray to ask for more of God for me and others. That we will be more open to God and His ways.
I find this a helpful idea. For me, it is still compatible with specific intercessions, because wanting specific "good" things are a child-like way of wanting "more of God". But I like the idea of wrapping up "forgotten" things in an overall longing for more of God, in the world, in me, in those who need, more than I like the idea of "....and everything else I've forgotten".

Of course, preferring one set of unspoken words to another seems, objectively, to be a bit daft. But I can accept that I'm a bit daft.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
For me, asking for stuff, has the premise that God is not here, so I want something as a comfort for that absence. But that seems like a cash machine, well, I guess this is one reason I'm not a Christian.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For me, asking for stuff, has the premise that God is not here, so I want something as a comfort for that absence. But that seems like a cash machine, well, I guess this is one reason I'm not a Christian.
Can I explore that a bit further? Are you saying you don't believe that God wants us to petition him, and that this is one reason you're not Christian - because the Gospel asserts that God does want us to ask him for things and you think that is untrue/a misunderstanding/some other kind of error?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For me, asking for stuff, has the premise that God is not here, so I want something as a comfort for that absence. But that seems like a cash machine, well, I guess this is one reason I'm not a Christian.
Can I explore that a bit further? Are you saying you don't believe that God wants us to petition him, and that this is one reason you're not Christian - because the Gospel asserts that God does want us to ask him for things and you think that is untrue/a misunderstanding/some other kind of error?
I don't want to start saying that other people are wrong. I'm just talking about something that baffles me, and Boogie's exposition makes sense to me. In a sense, nothing is in error before God.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
But there are going to be levels to supernaturally answered prayer. I'm not going to lie to you by saying that childbirth or a flower is a miracle, but many prayers do contain a level of supernatural involvement. To ignore that is to ignore reality.
I don't see how 'that' is 'to ignore reality', but let's leave that for a moment. Accepting your earlier comment about one in ten thousand prayers being answered, it would be very easy, then, to prove that God answers prayer by asking ten thousand Christians (OK, let's say one million, just to be sure we're ahead of the odds) to pray for the same thing (like a limb growing back) and see what happens.

K.
I didn't mean to be rude and the figure was fairly arbitrary.

An experiment wouldn't work because you haven't factored in Sod's Law to the whole experiment. Also, would God even want the whole prayer thing to be proved?
You seem to be changing your tune. Earlier you seemed absolutely certain that God answers prayer. If he does it should be easy to prove. The STEP study
was double blind, by the way. At present there is no evidence at all that God answers prayer. Wouldn't it be great to prove that he does, once and for all?

K.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The point is, Komensky, that there isn't any hard and fast empirical evidence that God 'is' in the first place ... at least, not that isn't capable of being explained by other means.

'What about Creation?' people say.
'We can explain that,' say the scientists and cosmologists.
'What about ...?'
'We can explain that too ...'

I'm not saying there is no evidence or no rational basis for believing in God - there is. But the data we choose to base that belief on can be seen otherwise by those who choose not to take a theistic approach for whatever reason.

You seem to be putting a lot of weight on this STEP study, 'Look, look, it proves that intercessory prayer doesn't work ...'

I don't know why that should be such a big deal to you, unless, of course, you've been stung or been put off by rather over-egged 'prayer ministry' approaches which do indeed reduce things to a very reductionist and often crass level.

I don't pretend to 'get' it or be able to explain how these things pan out but as Cliffdweller and Lamb Chopped have said, there certainly seems to be an emphasis on some kind of causal relationship between prayer and what happens around us - at least, that's what the scriptures seem to lead us to believe.

Either we dismiss that as some kind of outmoded, pre-Enlightenment approach and mind-set or we seek to work with it - for all the conundrums and difficulties this poses.

I know several clergy and others who strongly believe that God is non-interventionist and that there's no point in undertaking intercessionary prayer in the traditional way it has been framed.

Yet they still pray ... mainly because they believe it affects change and development in ourselves rather than in our external environment.

I can see why they might go down that route but to me it begs as many questions as it apparently resolves. It also seems to fly against the whole tenor and weight of scripture and tradition (small t and Big T) which - it seems to me - holds out a both/and model. There, I've come back to that again ...

Surely it's both? We can have the kind of Michael Ramsey approach that Oscar the Grouch has brought to our attention - and a wonderful approach it is too - and we can have the kind of approach/es that Lamb Chopped and Cliff Dweller have outlined - or Belle Ringer too for that matter ... although I wouldn't be as strongly against repeated prayers as she appears to be.

I have absolutely no idea how any of this 'works'.

On one level we could dismiss a traditional litany, say, as vain repetition - does God really need to hear the same, set prayers day in day out, year in year out whether it's from the 1662 BCP or the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom ...

But to dismiss these things as such would be to miss the point, I think.

Equally, we could take a very dismissive attitude towards the way prayers are framed in evangelical settings - 'the Lord we just, we really just, Father, Lord Jesus, we just ...' type of prayers.

Yes, these irritate the pants off me but I don't doubt the sincerity or the authenticity of those who pray in this manner.

There's a balance somewhere along the line.

They have a so-called 'prayer ministry' team in our parish which operates at the 11am service - although they've recently been introduced at the end of the more traditional 9am services. I wouldn't go anywhere near them - unless I was really, really desperate and clutching at anything I could ...

They are supposed to have undergone 'training' and so on. They aren't daft, but they aren't particularly sophisticated either. They mean well, but I wouldn't let them anywhere near me and mine.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I know several clergy and others who strongly believe that God is non-interventionist and that there's no point in undertaking intercessionary prayer in the traditional way it has been framed.

Yet they still pray ... mainly because they believe it affects change and development in ourselves rather than in our external environment.

I can see why they might go down that route but to me it begs as many questions as it apparently resolves. It also seems to fly against the whole tenor and weight of scripture and tradition (small t and Big T) .
And why not do just that?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Of course, you can do that if you wish - but it strikes me that you might end up doing violence to the broad tenor and thrust of that tradition ...

If you're happy to do that, then that's up to you.

All I'm suggesting is that the teachings of Christ - as we have them in the Gospels and mediated through the teachings of the Church/es down the ages seem to suggest that God is interventionist and that there appears to be some kind of causal effect between prayer and the way things pan out around us - then that's something we have to deal with/come to terms or or work with in some way.

Setting it to one side doesn't seem an option to me - unless we are prepared to suggest that the disciples, the Church (however we define that) and the broad thrust of Christian teaching down the centuries has been wrong on this particular point and now we who are far wiser and more enlightened have finally rumbled it ...

But perhaps I'm being naive ...
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Sorry, I don't have time to write as much as needed here. In terms of the personal usefulness of prayer—I'm completely convinced. I'm merely trying to separate that from the claims about effecting change in some external body through prayer—that simply doesn't happen and everyone who cares to look, knows that. I'm not suggesting that prayer is a waste of time (far from it).

Fatto in freta,

K.

[ 20. May 2015, 13:45: Message edited by: Komensky ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Setting it to one side doesn't seem an option to me - unless we are prepared to suggest that the disciples, the Church (however we define that) and the broad thrust of Christian teaching down the centuries has been wrong on this particular point and now we who are far wiser and more enlightened have finally rumbled it ...
It's not a case of right/wrong teaching for me.

I can't compartmentalise. So I can't put scriptures/teaching/church in one box and what I know deep down to be true in another. I can't say 'oh, the Bible/Church/Scripture must be right and God is arbitrary, due to a mystery as yet unexplained (why?)

This could very well be a fault in me and probably is.

But at the same time I feel that fear is what causes most people not to ditch the teachings of the Church/es down the ages on this matter. Fear of letting go all they held dear/their livelihood/their fellowship etc.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
but it is totally reasonable to pray about something and not expect God to intervene.

I ring my parents most evenings. I will tell them about the frustrations of the day as part of the call although its main purpose is to check on their health. As they are both over eighty and not well I do not expect them to do anything but listen.

Jengie
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Prayer is itself valuable whether or not we "get what we asked for" in the physical.
Prayer gets us in touch with God, and through that, over time, we begin to get glimpses of God's desires and values, and begin to see how amazing God is and life (now and later) can be.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Setting it to one side doesn't seem an option to me - unless we are prepared to suggest that the disciples, the Church (however we define that) and the broad thrust of Christian teaching down the centuries has been wrong on this particular point and now we who are far wiser and more enlightened have finally rumbled it ...
It's not a case of right/wrong teaching for me.

I can't compartmentalise. So I can't put scriptures/teaching/church in one box and what I know deep down to be true in another. I can't say 'oh, the Bible/Church/Scripture must be right and God is arbitrary, due to a mystery as yet unexplained (why?)

This could very well be a fault in me and probably is.
The fact that some prayers are answered the way we want and some aren't is not evidence that God is arbitrary. It is evidence IMHO that there is more at play in prayer than a simple magic trick. Scripture portrays it as an unseen spiritual battle. I know that sounds hopelessly primitive, but IMHO it's still the best explanation (I find it interesting that most people groups in most places over the centuries have believed some variation of this-- arguably because it fits with our experience of the world). It's trying to shoehorn our experience into a very simplistic and wooden Augustinian Calvinist paradigm of God's "omni-ness" that leads to the binary conclusion that either prayer has no substantive effect on reality (contrary to Scripture & centuries of church tradition) or that God arbitrarily plays favorites.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact that some prayers are answered the way we want and some aren't is not evidence that God is arbitrary. It is evidence IMHO that there is more at play in prayer than a simple magic trick. Scripture portrays it as an unseen spiritual battle.
A battle that God has lost?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact that some prayers are answered the way we want and some aren't is not evidence that God is arbitrary. It is evidence IMHO that there is more at play in prayer than a simple magic trick. Scripture portrays it as an unseen spiritual battle.
A battle that God has lost?
An ongoing battle that will one day end in the restoration of the new heaven & earth, when all is as it should be.

The implied question here is no more of a problem to a (for want of a better term) spiritual warfare view (please don't read Kraft/Wagner/Wimber here) than for an Augustinian view, which, as we have seen, leads to a view of either an impotent or indifferent or arbitrary God.

[ 20. May 2015, 15:20: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Prayer is itself valuable whether or not we "get what we asked for" in the physical.
Prayer gets us in touch with God, and through that, over time, we begin to get glimpses of God's desires and values, and begin to see how amazing God is and life (now and later) can be.
How do you 'get glimpses'—or is this an expression?

K.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
So God is playing out a divine baroque drama in which we are all mere players weaving drunkenly about on the boat of life, burning our fingers on both ends of the candle of life trying not to get eaten by the tiger while the demons of Pandemonia shriek like so many Elvis impersonators into our collective bicameral mind, telling us that God appears only to the truly grace-landed, and never actually sings himself?

So, no, I don't think God hovers his computer mouse cursor over our heads, deciding whether to click 'smite' or 'bless' based on our beseechings and sacrifices.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
]An ongoing battle that will one day end in the restoration of the new heaven & earth, when all is as it should be.
Or -

All is already as it should be. Life is full of pain and death, not due to demons or devils, but due to pain and death being part of the natural order. Evil is due to humans who have no empathy for one reason or another.

This is all because God has given total freedom to evolve. All cycles from water to rock to plant to animal life cycles need this freedom to survive.

He is neither impotent, indifferent nor arbitrary. He cares so deeply that He lets us be - and will come to be with us and comfort us if we want, but never as a matter of force, always by invitation.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So God is playing out a divine baroque drama in which we are all mere players weaving drunkenly about on the boat of life, burning our fingers on both ends of the candle of life trying not to get eaten by the tiger while the demons of Pandemonia shriek like so many Elvis impersonators into our collective bicameral mind, telling us that God appears only to the truly grace-landed, and never actually sings himself?

So, no, I don't think God hovers his computer mouse cursor over our heads, deciding whether to click 'smite' or 'bless' based on our beseechings and sacrifices.
Which of the paradigms that have been proposed by various shippies are you suggesting this describes?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Boogie--

I would agree with much but not all of what you wrote...

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
]An ongoing battle that will one day end in the restoration of the new heaven & earth, when all is as it should be.
Or -

All is already as it should be. Life is full of pain and death, not due to demons or devils, but due to pain and death being part of the natural order. Evil is due to humans who have no empathy for one reason or another.

This is all because God has given total freedom to evolve. All cycles from water to rock to plant to animal life cycles need this freedom to survive.
This works for a good chunk of the suffering and evil in the world, and is why some version of free will is necessary to even begin addressing the problems of theodicy. But there is also suffering, both human and animal, that is not the result of human choices but rather of nature itself-- the way the world is-- with natural disasters, cyclical famines, etc. The evolutionary process itself is full of suffering and injustice-- the survival of the fittest, the strong preying on the weak, etc.

Open theism/ spiritual warfare is the only paradigm that has really even attempted to address, however imperfectly, the theodicy problems inherent in a divine creation that includes these elements of natural evil.


quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

He is neither impotent, indifferent nor arbitrary. He cares so deeply that He lets us be - and will come to be with us and comfort us if we want, but never as a matter of force, always by invitation.
This I very much agree with-- it's a foundational principle of Open Theism.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Fascinating stuff on this thread. I suppose humans sometimes experience God and sometimes (or often) don't, and therefore struggle to understand that. As I said on another thread, I was very affected by my Sufi friend, who, when he got cancer, and was asked by the surgeon how he viewed that, said it was a gift from God. Well, I am still sorting this out. He died, so I guess he would say, with Rumi, that that is his wedding. Or from the multiplicity - to the One!
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which of the paradigms that have been proposed by various shippies are you suggesting this describes?
I thought you would understand, and indeed you have. It is mostly your's as quoted below, channeled through the disordered poetry of my mind.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
An ongoing battle that will one day end in the restoration of the new heaven & earth, when all is as it should be.

The implied question here is no more of a problem to a (for want of a better term) spiritual warfare view (please don't read Kraft/Wagner/Wimber here) than for an Augustinian view, which, as we have seen, leads to a view of either an impotent or indifferent or arbitrary God.
I cannot accept that we are pawns in some restorational sequence. The view must be grander and more respectful to humanity and individual humans than this and anything we've cooked up yet. Why else bother to have us evolve consciousness and self awareness?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Prayer is itself valuable whether or not we "get what we asked for" in the physical.
Prayer gets us in touch with God, and through that, over time, we begin to get glimpses of God's desires and values, and begin to see how amazing God is and life (now and later) can be.
How do you 'get glimpses'—or is this an expression?

K.
Do you have to go upstairs to do higher math?

Do you have to be physically taking hold of a physical object when you say you are catching on?

Talking about the non-physical (or not limited to physical) often relies on physical words, music is sweet, she has a sour disposition, and you can catch glimpses of God by way of prayer.
 
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
'Quality of the connection' is meaningless. Have you read this study? The two most likely results of intercessory prayer are (1) nothing or (2) making a person worse off. Knowing that, why bother?

If you still want to persist, consider your comments about God already knowing your thoughts.

K.
You can never get a true control group for intercessory prayer. Although researchers may not have recruited people to pray, there may be others praying unbeknown to the people concerned. Not to mention those churches who regularly pray for "the sick" as part of their liturgical intercession. So you can never get a true counter factual.

For another view on the relationship between prayer and healing, see the link below. It's a tangent....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candy-gunther-brown-phd/testing-prayer-science-of-healing_b_1299915.html
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Looks worth a read! Thanks for the link. I note from the publishers blurb that she does not argue for a supernatural power in the effects (whatever they may be) of prayer.

Added to my Amazon list!

K.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
The gist remains the same: "we claim supernatural intervention because of intercessory prayer. We believe this is a truism. By the way, we believe it cannot be tested. We also believe that if you do try to test it, God will probably foil your devilish plans—or, perhaps someone is secretly praying for a subject and you are not aware of it—and God decides to answer the prayers of that person (for some reason) and not the ones in your control group. See how God works! It's all very mysterious…"

I've heard it all before. If it were true, there would be evidence. Given the sheer numbers of claims, there should be heaps of evidence and there is zero. I'm perfectly willing to shut up about this, but talking about evidence for God answering your prayers is intellectually dishonest.

K.
 
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Looks worth a read! Thanks for the link. I note from the publishers blurb that she does not argue for a supernatural power in the effects (whatever they may be) of prayer.

Added to my Amazon list!

K.
Let me know what you think [Smile] . My own point about intercessory prayer is less that it's mysterious, more that it's untestable by research methods. On the Huff research, the researcher wouldn't say results could be evidence or not for God, since that conclusion is beyond the scope of the scientific methods employed.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not sure it boils down to a choice or mix between Open Theism and spiritual warfare. That seems as reductionist to me as elements of full-on Augustinianism/Calvinism.

Calvinists always say that their system is not as determinist as its detractors claim. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one - as much as I can tease them at times.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
All is already as it should be. Life is full of pain and death, not due to demons or devils, but due to pain and death being part of the natural order. Evil is due to humans who have no empathy for one reason or another.

This is all because God has given total freedom to evolve. All cycles from water to rock to plant to animal life cycles need this freedom to survive.

He is neither impotent, indifferent nor arbitrary. He cares so deeply that He lets us be - and will come to be with us and comfort us if we want, but never as a matter of force, always by invitation.
I agree so much with all of this.

One thing I think that needs to be emphasised is that not all suffering is evil. I think that this is where many people begin to get unstuck. They see the chaos and devastation of an earthquake or flood and place this in the same category as suffering caused by human action, such as war or terrorism. If all suffering is "evil", then behind all suffering (even natural disasters) must be an evil person or body originating the evil. Hence we get into things like spiritual warfare, or the pressure to pray for people to be healed from cancer.

I repeat - not all suffering is evil. Some suffering is just that - suffering. It's the way that the world is. Without the possibility of earthquakes, famine or floods, there would be no world for us to inhabit. That doesn't make suffering arising from earthquakes any less important. It doesn't reduce our desire to relieve suffering or grieve with those who grieve. But we make a big mistake when we call such things "evil".
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which of the paradigms that have been proposed by various shippies are you suggesting this describes?
I thought you would understand, and indeed you have. It is mostly your's as quoted below, channeled through the disordered poetry of my mind.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
An ongoing battle that will one day end in the restoration of the new heaven & earth, when all is as it should be.

The implied question here is no more of a problem to a (for want of a better term) spiritual warfare view (please don't read Kraft/Wagner/Wimber here) than for an Augustinian view, which, as we have seen, leads to a view of either an impotent or indifferent or arbitrary God.
I cannot accept that we are pawns in some restorational sequence. The view must be grander and more respectful to humanity and individual humans than this and anything we've cooked up yet. Why else bother to have us evolve consciousness and self awareness?
The reason I wondered who it was you were responding to was because absolutely nothing you wrote has anything at all to do with the Open Theist position I am advocating. Human beings in an Open paradigm are anything but helpless pawns. Indeed, the primary critique of open theism is the significant level of freedom given humans which appears to some to limit God's sovereignty. I would disagree, but at least that's a logical critique. You must be misunderstanding some aspect of what I wrote and/or I am miscommunicating something poorly for you to interpret anything like that.

Perhaps the term "spiritual warfare" is mixing you up, which is understandable, since the Wagner/Kraft paradigm would in some ways fit your description. It's unfortunate that no one has coined a better term for Boyd's Openist version of spiritual warfare (Boyd, get on that, will ya?) which differs significantly from the Wagner/Kraft/ Wimber paradigm that goes by the same name, or earlier dispensationalist versions.

[ 20. May 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

One thing I think that needs to be emphasised is that not all suffering is evil. I think that this is where many people begin to get unstuck. They see the chaos and devastation of an earthquake or flood and place this in the same category as suffering caused by human action, such as war or terrorism. If all suffering is "evil", then behind all suffering (even natural disasters) must be an evil person or body originating the evil. Hence we get into things like spiritual warfare, or the pressure to pray for people to be healed from cancer.

I repeat - not all suffering is evil. Some suffering is just that - suffering. It's the way that the world is. Without the possibility of earthquakes, famine or floods, there would be no world for us to inhabit. That doesn't make suffering arising from earthquakes any less important. It doesn't reduce our desire to relieve suffering or grieve with those who grieve. But we make a big mistake when we call such things "evil".
It's certainly a loaded term, but I think there's biblical precedent for it. I think there is biblical precedent for the notion that the suffering of the world, including non-human caused suffering, is evidence that the world is "not as it should be". It certain is the way things are but if Rev. 21 is at all correct, it's not the way things should be or one day will be. Whether you want to call that "natural evil" or simply "natural suffering" it is something that appears to be contrary to the way God intends it to be. Which then is going to bring us back to the question as to why things exist which are not chosen or caused by humans and yet are not the way God intends them to be.

[ 20. May 2015, 22:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Some suffering is just that - suffering. It's the way that the world is. Without the possibility of earthquakes, famine or floods, there would be no world for us to inhabit. That doesn't make suffering arising from earthquakes any less important.
I think there is biblical precedent for the notion that the suffering of the world, including non-human caused suffering, is evidence that the world is "not as it should be". It certain is the way things are but if Rev. 21 is at all correct, it's not the way things should be or one day will be.
The NT comment about "birth pangs" intrigues me, if only to wonder why are there birth pangs instead of a more comfortable way? But it does suggest various disasters natural and man-made are - necessary? For some longer term good.

And then there is Paul saying all things can work together for good. (I say "can" because I don't get a sense of "automatically" but I don't know ancient Greek.)

Comes across to me as there's more going on,and more potentially going on, than we recognize when we look at the messes this planet and it's inhabitants (human and other) seem to be in, and the many severe pains.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Some suffering is just that - suffering. It's the way that the world is. Without the possibility of earthquakes, famine or floods, there would be no world for us to inhabit. That doesn't make suffering arising from earthquakes any less important.
I think there is biblical precedent for the notion that the suffering of the world, including non-human caused suffering, is evidence that the world is "not as it should be". It certain is the way things are but if Rev. 21 is at all correct, it's not the way things should be or one day will be.
The NT comment about "birth pangs" intrigues me, if only to wonder why are there birth pangs instead of a more comfortable way? But it does suggest various disasters natural and man-made are - necessary? For some longer term good.

And then there is Paul saying all things can work together for good. (I say "can" because I don't get a sense of "automatically" but I don't know ancient Greek.)

Comes across to me as there's more going on,and more potentially going on, than we recognize when we look at the messes this planet and it's inhabitants (human and other) seem to be in, and the many severe pains.
I would say both those examples point more to what I'm saying-- that the world as it now is includes much suffering, but that is not as it should be, or as it will be. Rom. 8 is best understood as I read the Greek to be "God working alongside all things"-- iow, not that all things are good in some mysterious way, but rather that there is nothing so unredeemable that God cannot be working in and thru it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If all suffering is "evil", then behind all suffering (even natural disasters) must be an evil person or body originating the evil.
I don't understand why that is so. Where is it written that all evil is caused by an evil being?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If all suffering is "evil", then behind all suffering (even natural disasters) must be an evil person or body originating the evil.
I don't understand why that is so. Where is it written that all evil is caused by an evil being?
We're probably making a circular argument here... I think Oscar is saying "evil" is a term specifically reserved for something caused by a sentient being, whereas I was using the term to refer to any/all horrific suffering and particularly injustice. Rather than argue over definitions, I think it's best to just move on to the point that there is horrific suffering and injustice (both human & animal) that is not caused by human agents but is just part of the natural world, yet is every bit as horrible in it's impact and unjust in it's delivery as human-caused suffering (and we do set that bar pretty darn high, sad to say). Which means the problem of theodicy cannot be solved simply by appealing to free will.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which means the problem of theodicy cannot be solved simply by appealing to free will.
Why not?

If we can't have life without the 'problem' of bacteria etc then I think we'd still choose life and deal with the other stuff as best we can.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If all suffering is "evil", then behind all suffering (even natural disasters) must be an evil person or body originating the evil.
I don't understand why that is so. Where is it written that all evil is caused by an evil being?
We're probably making a circular argument here... I think Oscar is saying "evil" is a term specifically reserved for something caused by a sentient being, whereas I was using the term to refer to any/all horrific suffering and particularly injustice. Rather than argue over definitions, I think it's best to just move on to the point that there is horrific suffering and injustice (both human & animal) that is not caused by human agents but is just part of the natural world, yet is every bit as horrible in it's impact and unjust in it's delivery as human-caused suffering (and we do set that bar pretty darn high, sad to say). Which means the problem of theodicy cannot be solved simply by appealing to free will.
I think that is sidestepping an important subject and it severely obfuscates the question. The fact is that humans include in the definition of "suffering" the death of other humans they love, and the effects of various natural events such as hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes.

So - depending on your belief system - specifically areas of it that affect the application of intercessionary prayer - the above can be a normal part of "life" here on earth, or can be "horrendous suffering".

First on life itself - this material life is a transition - we come from and then were return to, having experienced whatever in this physical life and succeeded to whatever degree to express whatever we intended to express when we came here in the first place. "Going home" is a potentially joyful time - a few caveats perhaps if people have deliberately served evil, or if they leave this earth confused and are not prayed for - so they potentially may become lost in the return transition. The sadness we feel is for ourselves, our dreams, our wishes, not for that person.

Natural events - I really believe that if we were truly lovingly connected to this beautiful physical world, we would know these events were about to happen - and exactly like the wild animals in that area - would know with accurate certainty they were about to happen and do our best to leave well before the event. The problem is not that these events occur but that we have numbed ourselves with our way of living to the point that we no longer fully take part in the world.

Human cruelty and violence - is purely evil working out through largely unwitting human participation. Evil begets evil, but also evil necessarily makes people aware that they do not want it, and it often unwittingly begets good because it can't control all the outcomes of its thrashing around. The only thing missing to prevent evil from manifesting is that humans do not know how to do anything differently. God wants us all to live lives with free will which are also in divine order, and expends a lot of effort helping us to turn around back to the light, whilst still allowing us the free will we have been gifted.

wrt to intercessionary prayer, I believe that there is a way to do it which - from experience - works - and - from experience - if those basic few rules are not followed, it's pretty random or just doesn't work at all.

[ 21. May 2015, 07:50: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think that is sidestepping an important subject and it severely obfuscates the question. The fact is that humans include in the definition of "suffering" the death of other humans they love, and the effects of various natural events such as hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes.

So - depending on your belief system - specifically areas of it that affect the application of intercessionary prayer - the above can be a normal part of "life" here on earth, or can be "horrendous suffering".
Those aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Only "normal" because it's business as usual. That doesn't mean its as it's supposed to be. Which is rather my point.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The fact is that humans include in the definition of "suffering" the death of other humans they love, and the effects of various natural events such as hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes.

So - depending on your belief system - specifically areas of it that affect the application of intercessionary prayer - the above can be a normal part of "life" here on earth, or can be "horrendous suffering".
These things are both, of course. They are very much a normal part of life on Earth - we would not have a livable planet without them. But they also cause horrendous suffering. Much of which could be prevented or lessened if humans had the will or care to do so.

My point is that intercessory prayer is going to change none of it.

Prayer changes people and people change circumstances imo. So private prayer helps self improvement, public intercessory prayer encourages others to improve the lives of others. Private prayer changes nothing external in my view.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
I will continue to pray for the world in the belief that this DOES have a material effect.

However - praying for "all those poor suffering people" thinks of them as suffering - the belief is that they are suffering - so what kind of world is that kind of prayer encouraging and constructing? So I am NOT talking about praying in that way.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think it's great to pray for people, but not if you aren't going to tell them that you're praying for them.

Being told that folk are praying for you can be profoundly comforting - just the knowledge that someone cares enough to hold you in their thoughts is quite amazing.

But does God do stuff due to this - nope, not in my view or experience. God is available, to everyone, everywhere and always. Not to change circumstances but to change people if they will let Him.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
There are a lot of odd ways of thinking that have resulted from the medicalisation of our culture - one of which is the ethics of public health administration appears to have shifted sideways to cover the capacity to wish and ask for the best for everyone.

To clarify ... there is a distinct difference between magic - the deliberate creation by human will of an event or action or behaviour - vs intercession - which is the subject of this discussion. Magic may be good or bad - frankly - who can tell? How big is that person's view of the chain of causality that can spring from their will? Does e.g. saving a life by act of magic (as opposed to material human intervention) inevitably create more good in the world tomorrow, or less? Intercession through prayer is always constrained by what is in divine order (which includes a view of our spiritual selves and historical flow, amongst other things). Not by whatever outcome the person thinks might be good at the time. You can pray for whatever you wish. And as long as your prayers are to God(!) the outcome carries no harm. Willing something to happen because you think it is good - i.e. not trusting God's judgement - is not intercessionary prayer - it is magic.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
The Bible was written by people who had a particular 'mindset' -- which was the mindset of the 1st century. The scientific revolution of the 16th Cent changed all that. If anything it taught us that God does not work upon nature but in and through nature. Our job is to co-operate with Him, not to try and change His mind ( for He always wills our good) -- at least that is what Jesus taught.

I prefer to believe that the impact of our prayer is upon us rather than upon God. When growing up in Zimbabwe we often went camping and, if you didnt have matches or a lighter you used a magnifying glass to focus the sun's rays on the dry leaves and wood. Prayer focuses the rays of God's love and goodness and healing power. So I pray that "in us and through us and by us God's will might be done."
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Candy Guenther Brown's study is very interesting, but does not challenge the findings of the STEP study. Her study focusses on 'hands on' intercessory prayer of the 'prayer ministry' type.

quote:
“… perceived divine healing experiences have the potential to exert lasting effects—not only on the person claiming healing but also on family members, friends, and even on individuals with whom network connections are strikingly weak, indirect or transitory”
That's hardly a ringing endorsement that God is answering prayers. Her study is on the perceptions of 'healing'—which I agree is a fascinating one.

These sorts of conclusions are on par with similar kinds of 'laying on of hands' and 'healing' practices across a variety of faiths. I like the book so far. Note well that she does not claim supernatural healing–let alone a specifically Christian healing (apart from the praxis, of course). A very interesting and well-written book. I don't see how any of it helps verify the sorts of truth claims about Christian prayer though.

K.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The Bible was written by people who had a particular 'mindset' -- which was the mindset of the 1st century. The scientific revolution of the 16th Cent changed all that. If anything it taught us that God does not work upon nature but in and through nature. Our job is to co-operate with Him, not to try and change His mind ( for He always wills our good) -- at least that is what Jesus taught.

I prefer to believe that the impact of our prayer is upon us rather than upon God. When growing up in Zimbabwe we often went camping and, if you didnt have matches or a lighter you used a magnifying glass to focus the sun's rays on the dry leaves and wood. Prayer focuses the rays of God's love and goodness and healing power. So I pray that "in us and through us and by us God's will might be done."
You didn't carry a [Votive] ??

[Smile]

Yes - an "effective" prayer (i.e one that is answered) is one in which the intent and hopefully also the words place the prayer and the prayed more in line with what God wishes for us. This is definitely a change in us rather than a change in God. It is perhaps more a change in the total balance between Good and Evil.

I think the specifics of what he wishes for us are at any one time pretty flexible - just so long as there is a general movement towards more divine order/a deepened relationship with God and creation in our lives and the lives of people around us.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think the specifics of what he wishes for us are at any one time pretty flexible…
So God is not omniscient? Or are you arguing that he is omniscient of parallel universes where there are different possible outcomes? Finally, why do you think God's wishes for us are 'pretty flexible'?

K.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think the specifics of what he wishes for us are at any one time pretty flexible…
So God is not omniscient? Or are you arguing that he is omniscient of parallel universes where there are different possible outcomes? Finally, why do you think God's wishes for us are 'pretty flexible'?

K.
Free will, Free will, Free will. God has given up omniscence (in the sense that every event is controlled) here on Earth so that we can experience Free Will.

Maybe God does or does not know exactly how someone will choose - it matters not one jot. He rejoices when we make even the tiniest movement back towards Him and away from and out of the pit that (as a species) we have dug ourselves over the past few thousand years. Whether those choices are truly parallel universes again matters not one jot. Some choices appear to be nexuses in how our lives will progress and where we will go and who we will meet. But that type of choice is, I think, not part of the question. Every tiny choice we make, particularly the ones we are not so aware we are making - which thoughts we take up or discard - essentially boils down to one between good and evil. That is the free will we exercise. Turning towards God, or turning away from God.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

Free will, Free will, Free will. God has given up omniscence (in the sense that every event is controlled) here on Earth so that we can experience Free Will.
What makes you think you have free will?

quote:

Maybe God does or does not know exactly how someone will choose - it matters not one jot.
I would think it matters at least several jots. I'm trying figure out if you think God is omniscient. If so, does he know the future? If he doesn't know the future (because, you might argue, it hasn't happened yet and is therefore not knowable) he must exist in time like us. This seems to be at odds with his unchanging nature, because he would have to learn new things about us over time. You could solve this by saying that God exists outside of time and remains omniscient, but this then questions your claim about free will (which we either don't have at all, or have in some limited capacity).

K.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Sorry itsarumdo, I've only just clocked (and you were clear about it) that you don't believe that God is omniscient.

Sorry for missing that.

K.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
You have no idea what I think, Komensky.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I agree, that's why I'm asking. You made some bold claims about the Creator of the Universe. I'm merely asking how you got there.

My apologies if I got the tone wrong.

K.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think the specifics of what he wishes for us are at any one time pretty flexible…
So God is not omniscient? Or are you arguing that he is omniscient of parallel universes where there are different possible outcomes? Finally, why do you think God's wishes for us are 'pretty flexible'?

K.
I'm with tsarumdo (big surprise) not just on this point but on the prior points as well.

I think God's wishes for us are "pretty flexible" because the alternative is to make God a puppet master. God does not have a rigid, step-by-step plan for us that we must decipher in order to win the prize. We don't need to go thru life w/ constant anxiety wondering if we correctly figured it out, or if a casual choice made in a off moment might cause us to miss our true calling/ true love/ whatever and totally mess up our life plan.

God is a loving parent. He has wishes and dreams for us, but gives us freedom to make choices, to experiment, to follow our own wishes and dreams. He has made promises to us, and is able to keep them. Not by rigidly controlling every choice but because he is "omniscient" yes, in the way you describe-- knowing not parallel universes but rather parallel futures-- and is able to see how to accomplish those purposes in varied ways.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm trying figure out if you think God is omniscient. If so, does he know the future? If he doesn't know the future (because, you might argue, it hasn't happened yet and is therefore not knowable) he must exist in time like us. This seems to be at odds with his unchanging nature, because he would have to learn new things about us over time. You could solve this by saying that God exists outside of time and remains omniscient, but this then questions your claim about free will (which we either don't have at all, or have in some limited capacity).
I know this was directed towards itsarumdo who certainly doesn't need me to speak for him (her?), s/he is doing an excellent job. But if I may butt in to answer for myself--

As I've argued on the "time" thread, I believe God is inside time (probably voluntarily) as we are in time. This does not threaten his unchanging nature-- in fact, it is because of his unchanging nature, which is most of all love, that he chooses to enter into a time-bound universe in order to be in relationship with us. "Unchanging" does not mean that he must act in precisely the same way in every situation-- we have abundant examples where God acts differently in one situation than another, and even examples where Scripture says God "repents" of a decision and changes his mind due to human choices. Yet in all these things, God's nature is consistent. That's what "unchanging" means-- that we can count on God always being loving, gracious, relational, creative and holy. And because of that, we can trust him to adapt his actions to changing circumstances. God doesn't "learn new things" in the sense of being surprised by them-- while the future is open (not fixed) and God does not have definitive knowledge of future choices, God does know every possible future choice and the consequences of each.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps the term "spiritual warfare" is mixing you up, which is understandable, since the Wagner/Kraft paradigm would in some ways fit your description. It's unfortunate that no one has coined a better term for Boyd's Openist version of spiritual warfare (Boyd, get on that, will ya?) which differs significantly from the Wagner/Kraft/ Wimber paradigm that goes by the same name, or earlier dispensationalist versions.
Yes, your mixing up of that loaded term is certainly a confusing way of making your point, viz.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
An ongoing battle that will one day end in the restoration of the new heaven & earth, when all is as it should be.
---

Regarding evil, I'm with Oscar on this. But I might define it more, along the lines of the saying 'pain may be necessary, it's within the suffering that we have a choice'. Here is where intercession (though I don't use this word outside of liturgy) is helpful. Prayer and comforting words and practice ease suffering, and thus ease 'felt evil' or suffering.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps the term "spiritual warfare" is mixing you up, which is understandable, since the Wagner/Kraft paradigm would in some ways fit your description. It's unfortunate that no one has coined a better term for Boyd's Openist version of spiritual warfare (Boyd, get on that, will ya?) which differs significantly from the Wagner/Kraft/ Wimber paradigm that goes by the same name, or earlier dispensationalist versions.
Yes, your mixing up of that loaded term is certainly a confusing way of making your point, viz.
Yes, I was aware of that danger, which was why I specified not in the Kraft/Wagner/Wilmer sense. Unfortunately, that's the term it's been given by Boyd and others (his wonderful systematic theology is problematically called God at War-- a somewhat odd choice for a pacifist). I've struggled to come up with a better term. There are some similarities in the rough framework/ assumptions between Boyd and Kraft but some clear differences as well.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
I think how we should act ourselves is sometimes hard enough to grasp - As I said before, I think that second guessing what God does and does not know about the unfolding of events, or trying to pin God down to a particular relationship to time, is a pretty futile exercise.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I agree, that's why I'm asking. You made some bold claims about the Creator of the Universe. I'm merely asking how you got there.

My apologies if I got the tone wrong.

K.
Bold claims

Heck. "Claims" - jargon straight from Quackwatch

If one chooses to have some spiritual belief then generally that comes from a strong sense that there is something missing with the description of the world if the Spirit bit is omitted. After that, frankly, it is necessary to believe something - though my experience is that everything except the basics (and much of what we are talking about here is not basics) should be retained as a "po" to quote Edward de Bono. So - what do I/you/"people" believe? The next step is choosing someone very carefully who you feel has a genuine and profound connection to what it is you feel you wish to connect with, and also that person should be totally reliable. Most people on here do this through the bible - that's no the particular route I've travelled so far. Then one either experiences things which are congruent with said basic principles, or not. And one comes to trust more detail or not, partly through direct experience, partly through just gradually becoming more aware that this source is trustworthy.

You'll see it when you believe it, is, I believe, the process that occurs. Claims - opinions - aren't worth much compared to the personal experience of applying that belief. Here we rapidly get into a recurring argument between traditionalist authoritarians who implicitly trust the exegesis of their forefathers, and a more personal approach. The latter would say that - once we are even a millimetre removed from the source, everything starts to revert again to opinions.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
If all suffering is "evil", then behind all suffering (even natural disasters) must be an evil person or body originating the evil.
I don't understand why that is so. Where is it written that all evil is caused by an evil being?
We're probably making a circular argument here... I think Oscar is saying "evil" is a term specifically reserved for something caused by a sentient being, whereas I was using the term to refer to any/all horrific suffering and particularly injustice.
You're correct. I think that using the term “evil” for ALL suffering is simply incorrect and potentially highly misleading. An earthquake is not “evil” - it just is.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rather than argue over definitions, I think it's best to just move on to the point that there is horrific suffering and injustice (both human & animal) that is not caused by human agents but is just part of the natural world, yet is every bit as horrible in it's impact and unjust in it's delivery as human-caused suffering (and we do set that bar pretty darn high, sad to say). Which means the problem of theodicy cannot be solved simply by appealing to free will.
I think I also want to challenge the use of the term “injustice” in respect of “natural” disasters. To say that an earthquake is “unjust” implies that either someone is to blame, or something needs to be fixed. Neither are true.

For me this is important, as it means that we need to approach the issues of theodicy differently for natural disasters, than for suffering arising from human causes. We cannot simply lump all suffering together in a single category.

To give a simple (simplistic?) example, returning to the issue of prayer. Whilst we may indeed pray for God to lessen the impact of evil people like ISIS, it would be bizarre to pray that God would prevent earthquakes. I can pray for God's rule of love, justice and mercy to overcome all hatred and violence, but I can't pray for God to “bind up” the San Andreas Fault.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I agree, that's why I'm asking. You made some bold claims about the Creator of the Universe. I'm merely asking how you got there.

My apologies if I got the tone wrong.

K.
Bold claims

Heck. "Claims" - jargon straight from Quackwatch

If one chooses to have some spiritual belief then generally that comes from a strong sense that there is something missing with the description of the world if the Spirit bit is omitted. After that, frankly, it is necessary to believe something - though my experience is that everything except the basics (and much of what we are talking about here is not basics) should be retained as a "po" to quote Edward de Bono. So - what do I/you/"people" believe? The next step is choosing someone very carefully who you feel has a genuine and profound connection to what it is you feel you wish to connect with, and also that person should be totally reliable. Most people on here do this through the bible - that's no the particular route I've travelled so far. Then one either experiences things which are congruent with said basic principles, or not. And one comes to trust more detail or not, partly through direct experience, partly through just gradually becoming more aware that this source is trustworthy.

You'll see it when you believe it, is, I believe, the process that occurs. Claims - opinions - aren't worth much compared to the personal experience of applying that belief. Here we rapidly get into a recurring argument between traditionalist authoritarians who implicitly trust the exegesis of their forefathers, and a more personal approach. The latter would say that - once we are even a millimetre removed from the source, everything starts to revert again to opinions.
I'm less interested in opinions here and more interested in facts. You are making curious theological claims ('God is flexible'). Really? What makes you make such a claim? You are claiming unverifiable 'experience' as evidence of things happening in the physical world because of prayer. If it happens, there would be evidence. There isn't. So just come out say that God confounds those who seek evidence or that God's magic is beyond our earthly evidence. With a Christian hat on or off—your claims are wishy-washy.

K.

[ 21. May 2015, 20:44: Message edited by: Komensky ]
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
By the way, you still haven't answer a really vital question: what makes you think you have free will?

K.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

For me this is important, as it means that we need to approach the issues of theodicy differently for natural disasters, than for suffering arising from human causes. We cannot simply lump all suffering together in a single category.

To give a simple (simplistic?) example, returning to the issue of prayer. Whilst we may indeed pray for God to lessen the impact of evil people like ISIS, it would be bizarre to pray that God would prevent earthquakes. I can pray for God's rule of love, justice and mercy to overcome all hatred and violence, but I can't pray for God to “bind up” the San Andreas Fault.
Well, except people do all the time. When there are reports of a hurricane heading toward shore, don't we pray for divine intervention- to send it back out to ocean or to lessen it's severity? After a natural disaster, don't we all pray to God asking him to lessen the natural impact of this natural disaster?

As a pastor, I've sat with a lot of grieving parents. While everyone grieves uniquely, I've yet to see any significant difference in the grief of a parent who's child was suddenly killed by a drunk driver and one who's child was suddenly killed by a falling boulder in an earthquake. Sure, there's a focus for your grief with human-caused death-- you can clamor for justice, you can demand the perp be arrested, you can advocate for stricter laws or education. Those who lost their child thru natural causes experience virtually the same suffering-- but are told that because it's "natural" it cannot be "unjust"-- so they are not allowed the same relief of clamoring to God and asking "why".

If we believe this is a God-created world then the issue of natural-caused suffering is every bit an issue of theodicy as those that are human-caused. Indeed, the essence of the theodicy question itself is natural suffering precisely because it can only be laid at God's door and not humanity's.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm less interested in opinions here and more interested in facts.

<snip>

With a Christian hat on or off—your claims are wishy-washy.
Cognitive dissonance much?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm less interested in opinions here and more interested in facts. You are making curious theological claims ('God is flexible'). Really? What makes you make such a claim? You are claiming unverifiable 'experience' as evidence of things happening in the physical world because of prayer. If it happens, there would be evidence. There isn't. So just come out say that God confounds those who seek evidence or that God's magic is beyond our earthly evidence. With a Christian hat on or off—your claims are wishy-washy.
[Confused] Pretty much everything we talk about here is subject to the same claims. We cannot prove or disprove the "facts" of God's existence, much less whether the future is open or fixed, whether our freedom is real or illusionary. What sort of "facts" would we be able to seek one way or the other, whether with or w/o one's Christian "hat"? When it comes to these sorts of matters, all we have is our subjective experience and intuitive theorizing-- hence the debate.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
By the way, you still haven't answer a really vital question: what makes you think you have free will?

K.
Well, I would say that I have a choice whether or not to engage with you in conversation. You, would say that we are automatons without free will - and the future is therefore deterministic. This is a mediaeval paradigm (and an unsophisticated one at that) based on circular planetary orbits round the Earth.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
By the way, you still haven't answer a really vital question: what makes you think you have free will?

K.
Well, I would say that I have a choice whether or not to engage with you in conversation. You, would say that we are automatons without free will - and the future is therefore deterministic. This is a mediaeval paradigm (and an unsophisticated one at that) based on circular planetary orbits round the Earth.
Oh dear. Perhaps iron-age philosophy has given you iron-age science?

K.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I don't know why you are being so hostile towards me. You made a big claim about free will. I asked you why you thought you had free will and you decided to be unpleasant, rather than answer the question.

I think there is some interesting discussion happening here (and I've already started reading a new book as a result). Why not be a bit nicer and answer my questions?

K.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Lets say the word "claim" pushes a lot of buttons. The way that you use it is totally inappropriate for the subject matter here and the type of conversation that we're having, it implies that you somehow sit in judgement, it also implies some kind of deliberate fabrication on my part.

Beliefs are NOT claims - they are beliefs - many are a priori statements. I would guess most people on here have been very careful which a prioris they choose as a foundation for belief. The whole point about a spiritual belief is that knowingly or not, one HAS to choose an a priori basis for how one interprets experiences, what one considers possible, etc etc. In fact - this is true for everyone - everybody has a set of a priori beliefs that colour how they interpret and even how they perceive the information that world presents to them. If you don't get that, then it's time to have a hard look at what a prioris you run with all the time without realising. If you do get it - well you'll recognise that "claim" is not the correct word to use.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I think you are being a tad unreasonable in complaining about my use of the word 'claim'—but I'll humour you: why do you believe that you have free will?

K.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
it's an a priori

if free will does not exist, then either I am an automaton and regardless of what meaning I might construct, life is meaningless; and/or Martins ravings about a killer god are correct.

I don't believe the first because I look at life and even the simplest cell or even organelle is not an automata. And that is partly based on my experience of living in this world - I find the dozen or so lines from Wordsorth's Tintern Abbey "And I have felt a presence..." both capture the moment to moment joy of life that we can have glimpses of, and also capture some of the Love that God is. So, you could say that I have looked for a philosophy that fits my experiences. So underlying all that has to be the a priori - I trust my senses. So similarly I have (accidentally, or otherwise) gravitated towards a particular belief system that prioritises the embodied experience of connection with God, as a means to know what is a correct action and what is not. And (bringing this back to the topic) in that world, Intercession is an experienced and observable fact.

[ 22. May 2015, 11:11: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
it's an a priori

if free will does not exist, then either I am an automaton and regardless of what meaning I might construct, life is meaningless; and/or Martins ravings about a killer god are correct.

I don't believe the first because I look at life and even the simplest cell or even organelle is not an automata. And that is partly based on my experience of living in this world - I find the dozen or so lines from Wordsorth's Tintern Abbey "And I have felt a presence..." both capture the moment to moment joy of life that we can have glimpses of, and also capture some of the Love that God is. So, you could say that I have looked for a philosophy that fits my experiences. So underlying all that has to be the a priori - I trust my senses. So similarly I have (accidentally, or otherwise) gravitated towards a particular belief system that prioritises the embodied experience of connection with God, as a means to know what is a correct action and what is not. And (bringing this back to the topic) in that world, Intercession is an experienced and observable fact.
Weird. Ok. Carry on.

K.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
As I keep saying ...

You'll see it (i.e. experience it) when you believe it

Not as an illusion or artefact or construction or psychosis - but as a really real reality. I won't go into what constitutes "believe" in the above sense, because it's utterly meaningless without at least the 100% honest will to experience. And if that is present, you won't need my words, and they might even be confusing because odds are you would be approaching it slightly differently from me - because you are not me.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
As I keep saying ...

You'll see it (i.e. experience it) when you believe it

Not as an illusion or artefact or construction or psychosis - but as a really real reality. I won't go into what constitutes "believe" in the above sense, because it's utterly meaningless without at least the 100% honest will to experience. And if that is present, you won't need my words, and they might even be confusing because odds are you would be approaching it slightly differently from me - because you are not me.
I guess both of us can see how people like Luther warn their readers that 'reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has'.

K.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
As I keep saying ...

You'll see it (i.e. experience it) when you believe it

Not as an illusion or artefact or construction or psychosis - but as a really real reality. I won't go into what constitutes "believe" in the above sense, because it's utterly meaningless without at least the 100% honest will to experience. And if that is present, you won't need my words, and they might even be confusing because odds are you would be approaching it slightly differently from me - because you are not me.
I guess both of us can see how people like Luther warn their readers that 'reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has'.

K.
Though with quite different interpretations of that...

I would agree with Luther only on so far as "Reason" is "Logic" and "Mental/Intellectual dissection". If feelings are also part of "Reason", and the head is guided by a peaceful heart (rather than the heart ignored by an egotistical head), then I would disagree with Luther. Since he's not here to ask, it's an interesting question what he was talking about, because pure intellectualism wasn't supposed to have arisen for another 200 years.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Perhaps iron-age philosophy has given you iron-age science?
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't know why you are being so hostile towards me.
And the cognitive dissonance just keeps on comin'.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I will continue to pray for the world in the belief that this DOES have a material effect.

However - praying for "all those poor suffering people" thinks of them as suffering - the belief is that they are suffering - so what kind of world is that kind of prayer encouraging and constructing? So I am NOT talking about praying in that way.
I don't understand what you're saying. You seem to have said that you think the suffering in this world is now how the world is supposed to be; well and good. But then it's not suffering at all? Or to say that someone is suffering constructs a certain kind of world? Please explain.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
*not how the world is supposed to be
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
I think that's just beyond my capacity to convey in writing
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The "God is a loving parent" metaphor from a page back (Cliffdweller) doesn't work. May it did when parents routinely hit their kids, what was called spanking, lickings, taken out behind the wood shed, etc. Such things were often delivered with the cliché "this is going to hurt me more than it will you", which is twaddle of course.

The violence that parents routinely inflicted on their children from previous ages aside, a loving parent does usually try to prevent some of the major disasters of life and provides a minimum of sustenance so the children don't starve.

I think, thus, we have an anachronism when we say God is our father or a loving parent. This works perhaps in some cultures where the biological father is a feudal king. Some of my clients from Muslim countries and eastern Europe tell me how they were to kneel and kiss father's hand, answering with the equivalent of "yes sir" to all that he said. Problems were not dad's to address, and support was child to parent not parent to child.

Intercessions of thought of from child to parent might have to be considered thus within the context of traditional all-powerful family fathers who meted out violence as a general expectation.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Perhaps iron-age philosophy has given you iron-age science?
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't know why you are being so hostile towards me.
And the cognitive dissonance just keeps on comin'.
I don't think you know what that means.

K.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The "God is a loving parent" metaphor from a page back (Cliffdweller) doesn't work. May it did when parents routinely hit their kids, what was called spanking, lickings, taken out behind the wood shed, etc. Such things were often delivered with the cliché "this is going to hurt me more than it will you", which is twaddle of course.

The violence that parents routinely inflicted on their children from previous ages aside, a loving parent does usually try to prevent some of the major disasters of life and provides a minimum of sustenance so the children don't starve.

I think, thus, we have an anachronism when we say God is our father or a loving parent. This works perhaps in some cultures where the biological father is a feudal king. Some of my clients from Muslim countries and eastern Europe tell me how they were to kneel and kiss father's hand, answering with the equivalent of "yes sir" to all that he said. Problems were not dad's to address, and support was child to parent not parent to child.

Intercessions of thought of from child to parent might have to be considered thus within the context of traditional all-powerful family fathers who meted out violence as a general expectation.
I had to go back and scour my posts on that page to figure out what the heck you were talking about. I finally found what I think you are referencing-- a very specific and limited use of the analogy in the context of the question of whether God's plans for us are flexible or specific:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

God is a loving parent. He has wishes and dreams for us, but gives us freedom to make choices, to experiment, to follow our own wishes and dreams. He has made promises to us, and is able to keep them. Not by rigidly controlling every choice but because he is "omniscient" yes, in the way you describe-- knowing not parallel universes but rather parallel futures-- and is able to see how to accomplish those purposes in varied ways.
You seem to be generalizing the analogy more broadly than I intended, as in fact, many do with the "God as Father" metaphor. I would agree that "Father" is often a problematic metaphor, particularly when someone's experience of Father is abusive or absent. In particular, it is problematic in the broader context that we've been talking about here-- as an explanation for suffering. I would not use the metaphor in that broader context at all-- which is why I've been advocating here for a very different answer to the problem of suffering.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It all seems weasel words to me. God is loving and gives us the rope with which to hang ourselves or tie others up. Where's the involvement?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It all seems weasel words to me. God is loving and gives us the rope with which to hang ourselves or tie others up. Where's the involvement?
Is this a response to my broader argument re free will or to my specific and very limited use of the "loving parent" analogy? I don't see how it follows at all from the way I was using the loving parent analogy so I'll assume it is a response to the free will argument.

Yes, the problem with the free will argument to explain theodicy is twofold:
1. As you note, it seems like God is passively allowing others to wage evil that he could prevent
2. As noted above, it doesn't explain natural suffering

otoh, the Augustinian/Calvinist argument is even worse-- since it inevitably makes God the direct (rather than indirect) author of evil.

Back to your critique of the free will perspective, this is why I'm advocating Boyd's unfortunately named warfare worldview (a particular type of Open Theism)-- because it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).

The Open position very much configures a God who is active and engaged in the world, who in fact, responds to human choices and decisions. But most Open Theists envision a God who never overrides human freedom.

[ 22. May 2015, 19:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Perhaps iron-age philosophy has given you iron-age science?
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't know why you are being so hostile towards me.
And the cognitive dissonance just keeps on comin'.
I don't think you know what that means.

K.
Could be. Perhaps I just mean hypocrisy.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Perhaps iron-age philosophy has given you iron-age science?
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't know why you are being so hostile towards me.
And the cognitive dissonance just keeps on comin'.
I don't think you know what that means.

K.
Could be. Perhaps I just mean hypocrisy.
I'm guilty of the latter after being snotty and then complaining that the other kids weren't playing nice. Mea culpa.

K.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Perhaps iron-age philosophy has given you iron-age science?
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't know why you are being so hostile towards me.
And the cognitive dissonance just keeps on comin'.
I don't think you know what that means.

K.
Could be. Perhaps I just mean hypocrisy.
I'm guilty of the latter after being snotty and then complaining that the other kids weren't playing nice. Mea culpa.

K.
Nice.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Good has been done here.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Back to your critique of the free will perspective, this is why I'm advocating Boyd's unfortunately named warfare worldview (a particular type of Open Theism)-- because it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).

The Open position very much configures a God who is active and engaged in the world, who in fact, responds to human choices and decisions. But most Open Theists envision a God who never overrides human freedom.
Thanks for the clearer explanation. I'm not comfortable with the differential perception or intent for humans and God. It sounds like a turn on gnosis where the hidden knowledge here is God's which he ?mischievously doesn't share.

I'm probably thinking of things moreso than you from the individual perspective, of the person, alone, in their situation, often suffering. The only thing relevant is ease of suffering. Thus, all of the praying is to obtain some purchase on little bit of divine grace: to make it through the next day, hour or minute. With nothing expected for God's tangible intervention.

[ 22. May 2015, 23:08: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Back to your critique of the free will perspective, this is why I'm advocating Boyd's unfortunately named warfare worldview (a particular type of Open Theism)-- because it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).

The Open position very much configures a God who is active and engaged in the world, who in fact, responds to human choices and decisions. But most Open Theists envision a God who never overrides human freedom.
Thanks for the clearer explanation. I'm not comfortable with the differential perception or intent for humans and God. It sounds like a turn on gnosis where the hidden knowledge here is God's which he ?mischievously doesn't share.

I'm probably thinking of things moreso than you from the individual perspective, of the person, alone, in their situation, often suffering. The only thing relevant is ease of suffering. Thus, all of the praying is to obtain some purchase on little bit of divine grace: to make it through the next day, hour or minute. With nothing expected for God's tangible intervention.
huh???
[Confused]

Where are you getting the hidden knowledge from? What do you mean by the "differential perception or intent for humans and God"???

And are you still responding to me when you suggest "nothing expected for God's tangible intervention"-- which would be odd since my position calls for a more tangible, rather than less tangible, intervention.

None of what you're writing seems to correspond either positively or negatively to what I'm saying. Which leaves me

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

Perhaps you've confused my position with that of another shippie???

[ 23. May 2015, 00:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Good has been done here.
Yeah, I liked that.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Perhaps all intercessions are prayers for the ability to accept what we cannot change, rather than prayers for God to change what we cannot change?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Good has been done here.
Yeah, I liked that.
Me too.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Perhaps all intercessions are prayers for the ability to accept what we cannot change, rather than prayers for God to change what we cannot change?
And this.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Back to your critique of the free will perspective, this is why I'm advocating Boyd's unfortunately named warfare worldview (a particular type of Open Theism)-- because it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).

The Open position very much configures a God who is active and engaged in the world, who in fact, responds to human choices and decisions. But most Open Theists envision a God who never overrides human freedom.
Thanks for the clearer explanation. I'm not comfortable with the differential perception or intent for humans and God. It sounds like a turn on gnosis where the hidden knowledge here is God's which he ?mischievously doesn't share.

I'm probably thinking of things moreso than you from the individual perspective, of the person, alone, in their situation, often suffering. The only thing relevant is ease of suffering. Thus, all of the praying is to obtain some purchase on little bit of divine grace: to make it through the next day, hour or minute. With nothing expected for God's tangible intervention.
huh???
[Confused]

Where are you getting the hidden knowledge from? What do you mean by the "differential perception or intent for humans and God"???

And are you still responding to me when you suggest "nothing expected for God's tangible intervention"-- which would be odd since my position calls for a more tangible, rather than less tangible, intervention.

None of what you're writing seems to correspond either positively or negatively to what I'm saying. Which leaves me

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

Perhaps you've confused my position with that of another shippie???
But not this. Invoking the demiurge and that the world isn't exactly as God intends, that it could have been any other esoteric way, is gnostic.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Perhaps all intercessions are prayers for the ability to accept what we cannot change, rather than prayers for God to change what we cannot change?
Very nice. And when we accept these things, they often start to change.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
huh???
[Confused]

Where are you getting the hidden knowledge from? What do you mean by the "differential perception or intent for humans and God"???

And are you still responding to me when you suggest "nothing expected for God's tangible intervention"-- which would be odd since my position calls for a more tangible, rather than less tangible, intervention.
It is the position that that we can expect and should expect no response from God that I hold, not you.

quote:
cliffdweller:... it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).
If God intends and desires the world to be different he has knowledge of what it should be that I certainly don't have and it is opaque and hidden from me. Perhaps you have knowledge about it.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Back to your critique of the free will perspective, this is why I'm advocating Boyd's unfortunately named warfare worldview (a particular type of Open Theism)-- because it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).

The Open position very much configures a God who is active and engaged in the world, who in fact, responds to human choices and decisions. But most Open Theists envision a God who never overrides human freedom.
Thanks for the clearer explanation. I'm not comfortable with the differential perception or intent for humans and God. It sounds like a turn on gnosis where the hidden knowledge here is God's which he ?mischievously doesn't share.

I'm probably thinking of things moreso than you from the individual perspective, of the person, alone, in their situation, often suffering. The only thing relevant is ease of suffering. Thus, all of the praying is to obtain some purchase on little bit of divine grace: to make it through the next day, hour or minute. With nothing expected for God's tangible intervention.
huh???
[Confused]

Where are you getting the hidden knowledge from? What do you mean by the "differential perception or intent for humans and God"???

And are you still responding to me when you suggest "nothing expected for God's tangible intervention"-- which would be odd since my position calls for a more tangible, rather than less tangible, intervention.

None of what you're writing seems to correspond either positively or negatively to what I'm saying. Which leaves me

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

Perhaps you've confused my position with that of another shippie???
But not this. Invoking the demiurge and that the world isn't exactly as God intends, that it could have been any other esoteric way, is gnostic.
Obviously I very much disagree-- you and I have gone 'round on this one before. But I'm really wanting to get no prophet's answer on this, as I think he was responding to something different than what you're addressing, but I'm confused by his/her comments.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Sorry if I'm thick on this. What is the question you want me to address?

Here's the kind of thing that makes me decide that God doesn't intervene. I happen to know many of the people who survived this and some of the dead. Who were praying as they faced their death, and others who prayed on shore among the mosquitos.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sorry if I'm thick on this. What is the question you want me to address?
Sorry, I see that you did already-- I just missed it before.


quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
huh???
[Confused]

Where are you getting the hidden knowledge from? What do you mean by the "differential perception or intent for humans and God"???

And are you still responding to me when you suggest "nothing expected for God's tangible intervention"-- which would be odd since my position calls for a more tangible, rather than less tangible, intervention.
It is the position that that we can expect and should expect no response from God that I hold, not you. .
OK, but what did you mean by the "hidden knowledge" thing? I'm at a loss as to what you see in my position that would be comparable to gnostic "hidden knowledge"? And again, what the heck do you mean by "differential perception or intent for humans and God"?
[Confused]

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
cliffdweller:... it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).
If God intends and desires the world to be different he has knowledge of what it should be that I certainly don't have and it is opaque and hidden from me. Perhaps you have knowledge about it.
Well, obviously I am just speculating-- as all of us are when it comes to matters of the divine. However, I think the notion that the suffering and in justice of the world is "not right" is a fairly widespread opinion among Christians and nonChristians alike. Which, of course, is the essence of the theodicy question that is at hand here-- if God is, as most Christians assume, good and powerful, then why are things so messed up? Obviously there are many answers to that question, none very satisfying, mine is just one. But most begin with the fairly non-opaque and non-hidden observation that the world is a pretty messed up place.

[code]

[ 27. May 2015, 04:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
free will = ability NOT to being divine order = potential for evil if people (or spirits allowed free will) either choose not to remain within that order, or (having forgotten that there is such a choice to be made) do not choose (because they don't realise it is a choice). Thus, evil is also able to proliferate, and even to masquerade as God.

The fact that free will has been given to us - as far as I can make out, as long as we don't completely destroy ourselves with this freedom, God does not want to remove it - for whatever reasons.

as far as I can make out there are only a few arguments against intercesion

1. God doesnt exist (what can i say)

2. Look at all the suffering and evil in the world - well, it's there because of the effects of free will and specifically the free will that is weilded by beings who would like to be Gods themselves. But also out of human ignorance

3. But what about all thoise children who die? We all doe - sometime. The Chinese say that true happiness is Grandparents diwe, parenmts die, childrem die, grandchildren die - in that order. But (again I have to take this as a fact, but it feels right) - we come here with an allotted timespan - whether that is a couple of minutes or 500 years, and we should be happy for spirits whose timespan has ended and who have been allowed to return home. The unhappiness is for ourselves, not for the spirits who are home where they came from (unless you don't believe that there is non-material existence in which case #1 applies)

4. They prayed and stll shit happened. Well - again my experience is that when most people pray for intercession they are thinking really strongly about what it is that they **don't** want to happen - and often talking about it too in the prayer. Neither of which really exhibit a total faith and belief that God helps and neither of which really give up the "problem" to God - if it's given up completely it is no longer a worry - it's often no longer even a thought - it just doesn't exist. Because if the thought that this might happen is given up, then that is a major factor in the prayer being able to be answered (it's always answered). Most people also pray not only for a specific outcome, but for *how* that comes about - which again substantially beggars the possibilities of intercession.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
. They prayed and stll shit happened. Well - again my experience is that when most people pray for intercession they are thinking really strongly about what it is that they **don't** want to happen - and often talking about it too in the prayer. Neither of which really exhibit a total faith and belief that God helps and neither of which really give up the "problem" to God - if it's given up completely it is no longer a worry - it's often no longer even a thought - it just doesn't exist. Because if the thought that this might happen is given up, then that is a major factor in the prayer being able to be answered (it's always answered). Most people also pray not only for a specific outcome, but for *how* that comes about - which again substantially beggars the possibilities of intercession.
I'm sorry, but this strikes me as the same unhelpful blame the victim stuff we hear all the time. You didn't pray the "right way", you didn't have enough faith, you continued to be anxious about your child with stage 4 cancer which means you didn't really "give it up" so too bad for you, your kid dies. I really really hope that God is better than that.
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Yes we have been here before... Blame - is about as far from y meaning as it'd possible to get. Maybe this cannot be conveyed in sound bites. And I never said that it could be done "by us" without help.

Maybe it's worth saying that if free will is one rule then there most likely are also rules how it might be applied to optimum effect. Rules may not be exactly the right word and there is no doubt that there is also grace. Someone who received that grace in bucketfuls told me last year that - if it doesn't feel like love, it's a lie and a deception. I can't say I have experienced exactly that but what I have experienced leas dame to believe she is correct
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Back to your critique of the free will perspective, this is why I'm advocating Boyd's unfortunately named warfare worldview (a particular type of Open Theism)-- because it begins with the assumption that the world as we see it now is not the world as God intends or desires it to be (or as it will one day be).

The Open position very much configures a God who is active and engaged in the world, who in fact, responds to human choices and decisions. But most Open Theists envision a God who never overrides human freedom.
Thanks for the clearer explanation. I'm not comfortable with the differential perception or intent for humans and God. It sounds like a turn on gnosis where the hidden knowledge here is God's which he ?mischievously doesn't share.

I'm probably thinking of things moreso than you from the individual perspective, of the person, alone, in their situation, often suffering. The only thing relevant is ease of suffering. Thus, all of the praying is to obtain some purchase on little bit of divine grace: to make it through the next day, hour or minute. With nothing expected for God's tangible intervention.
huh???
[Confused]

Where are you getting the hidden knowledge from? What do you mean by the "differential perception or intent for humans and God"???

And are you still responding to me when you suggest "nothing expected for God's tangible intervention"-- which would be odd since my position calls for a more tangible, rather than less tangible, intervention.

None of what you're writing seems to correspond either positively or negatively to what I'm saying. Which leaves me

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

Perhaps you've confused my position with that of another shippie???
But not this. Invoking the demiurge and that the world isn't exactly as God intends, that it could have been any other esoteric way, is gnostic.
Obviously I very much disagree-- you and I have gone 'round on this one before. But I'm really wanting to get no prophet's answer on this, as I think he was responding to something different than what you're addressing, but I'm confused by his/her comments.
You disagree with what? You mean you DON'T proclaim the demiurge? I've got it all wrong? About you? That creation is not evil at its own hand as soon as it had one?

What?

That there ISN'T some magical alternative universe where everything went 'right'?

Your common sense works on two out of three stool legs, that is the greatest mystery.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Cliffdweller: when you indicate that God knows the world isn't right and isn't as God desires, what might God do about it? And why not do it?

The hidden knowledge I refer to is this God-driven plan that God knows about, and I certainly don't. I may have leapt to the assumption that certain people are in the know about it. Perhaps no one knows in your view?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0