Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[Spock]

The books may show that God ordered wholesale slaughter but it does not follow that He did so.

Cherry picking, as usual. Which parts are supposed to accepted as verbatim, which parts are allegorical (and what do they mean?), and which parts are simply wrong? Since you, Catholics believe that the Church is the only one, which is “qualified” to make that distinction, and the Church obviously does not do in a rigorous, line by line fashion, we have a grey area, which is somethimes interpreted this way, sometimes interpreted differently. The Church did not do its duty to separate the wheat from the chaff - if there is any wheat in it at all.

The funny thing is that the Bible stories were supposedly “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, that the Church was allegedly “guided” by the Holy Spirit, and yet, the Bible is full of misinterpreted (and/or misinterpretable) stories and sheer nonsense. Somehow the Holy Spirit did not do a good job of “inspiring” or “guiding”. It “neglected” to inform the authors that the circumference of the circle in not 3 times its diameter - even though the contemporaries already knew it better.

 

[tonyrey]

Cherry picking, as usual. Which parts are supposed to accepted as verbatim, which parts are allegorical (and what do they mean?), and which parts are simply wrong?

Your nitpicking approach to the Old Testament reveals your unawareness that its main purpose was give basic moral laws to a primitive tribe which would foreshadow and prepare the Chosen People for the coming of the Messiah with His message of love and hope for everyone, not just the select few.

Since you, Catholics believe that the Church is the only one, which is “qualified” to make that distinction, and the Church obviously does not do in a rigorous, line by line fashion, we have a grey area, which is somethimes interpreted this way, sometimes interpreted differently. The Church did not do its duty to separate the wheat from the chaff - if there is any wheat in it at all.

If you reject the wheat what are you left with? Your own parochial, fallible notions of what is good and evil - assuming you even accept that distinction!

The funny thing is that the Bible stories were supposedly “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, that the Church was allegedly “guided” by the Holy Spirit, and yet, the Bible is full of misinterpreted (and/or misinterpretable) stories and sheer nonsense. Somehow the Holy Spirit did not do a good job of “inspiring” or “guiding”.

The fact that the Bible has inspired countless human beings to heroic lives of service and love for others is ample evidence that it contains moral and spiritual truths which are the basis of modern civilisation. What is** your **source of guidance and inspiration?

It “neglected” to inform the authors that the circumference of the circle in not 3 times its diameter - even though the contemporaries already knew it better.

Your example of “neglect” merely underlines the absurdity of your argument with its implication that the Bible is defective because it is not an encyclopaedia which contains all scientific and mathematical truths!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Hi,
You sound so much like the skeptical streak I have in my personality that constantly questions everything. So I can’t resist responding, even though your post was directed to someone else’s comments.

Indeed he said: “Whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go to the Father”. That is a very strong promise. He also said: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell the moutain, go yonder, and it will go”. (Not verbatim quotations). Also an explicit promise. Did you try it? Did the mountain move?

I’ve often dwelled on that saying and thought about moving the mountain. I doubted that it could really happen, that the mountain would move, but its such an exciting idea. Should I try it? Would it really work? But, since I don’t really believe it will happen, does that mean that I don’t have the faith to ask for it to move? And if I do have complete faith that it will move, then why am I asking to move the mountain? What practical purpose would it serve? Which mountain should I ask God to move, and where should I ask him to put it? I’ll have to find a mountain with no one living on it so it doesn’t harm them. But what other problems will this cause for people? Why am I moving this mountain, if not solely to put God to the test, which demonstrates that I lack faith?

To preempt the usual response, obviously Jesus did not mean “everything”, when he said “everything” (which is sloppy wording on his part). He must have meant: “if the prayer was what God otherwise intended”. “If it be thy will…” is the form most people use. So, why issue intercessory prayers at all? “If it be thy will, please perform this…”? If it is God’s will, he will do it anyhow. If it is against his will, he will not do it, even if you pray for it. Not to mention that God is immutable, he cannot be influenced by prayer.

Jesus did mean what He said. I think part of the purpose of what he said was to show our lack of faith. Another was to affirm the power of prayer. Yet another was to get us thinking about it. Pondering Jesus’ statement can lead to all sorts of insights.

If one has faith, why would he pray for something that goes against God’s will? So the faithful person will pray for things that align with God’s will. For example, we will pray that we grow in virtue, or that certain people come to have faith. Do you have a double-blind experiment that tests if sincere prayer for the pray-er to grow in virtue is effective? I would like to read about it or participate in it.

You should consider praying for increased understanding of these topics you discuss online. Ask God to help you understand why people believe, and to give you faith. If you can ask with sincerity, and not with the purpose of testing God, then I think your prayer will be effective. Unfortunately it might be impossible for you to do that

Double blind tests are the only kind, which can separate the actual results from the placebo effects.

The patients are divided into two groups. In the first group there are the patients for whom prayer is uttered in a systematic fashion (Group A). The other group is the control group, for whom no systematic prayer is performed (Group B). The point is that neither the doctor, nor the patient is aware of who belongs to which group. At the end of the experiment it is eveluated if the patients in Group A show a significant benefit which does not occur in Group B. Significant beyond the statistical fluctuations. There were never any positive results.

I think this experiment goes to show that most of the time, if someone is sick, there’s a good reason why God hasn’t intervened to cure them. I don’t know what the reason is… I could speculate all day but I don’t know. I would like to see an experiment where people pray with sincerity that they grow in virtue. Of course, you’ll have difficulty avoiding the placebo effect. The placebo effect has to do with a person believing that something will happen to them, which is very similar to faith. So removing the placebo effect might require removing faith!

 

[Man]

Cherry picking, as usual. Which parts are supposed to accepted as verbatim, which parts are allegorical (and what do they mean?), and which parts are simply wrong? Since you, Catholics believe that the Church is the only one, which is “qualified” to make that distinction, and the Church obviously does not do in a rigorous, line by line fashion, we have a grey area, which is somethimes interpreted this way, sometimes interpreted differently. The Church did not do its duty to separate the wheat from the chaff - if there is any wheat in it at all.

The funny thing is that the Bible stories were supposedly “inspired” by the Holy Spirit, that the Church was allegedly “guided” by the Holy Spirit, and yet, the Bible is full of misinterpreted (and/or misinterpretable) stories and sheer nonsense. Somehow the Holy Spirit did not do a good job of “inspiring” or “guiding”. It “neglected” to inform the authors that the circumference of the circle in not 3 times its diameter - even though the contemporaries already knew it better.

Dueteronomy 1-4 is something that Christians, and I assume Jews, struggle with throughout their religious experience. I have not seen any really good commentary, especially because we are so fearful of this passage. But then, that could be the purpose itself. God is Lord, He can bring good from evil. This act appears to be evil itself, and so I assume it is just another mystery among many. The account of Noah and the flood is actually worse, just less explicit.

Now, if you’d be so kind, could answer a couple questions for me?

Have you been hurt personally by some Christian that increased you skepticism of Christianity?

Is that some moral principal held by Christians that is an impediment to belief in Christianity, even if you other questions were answered?

Do you accept that if we believe in an infinite God, we must acknowledge certain things as mysteries, even if we have some knowledge of them, because we logically or reasonably be expected to comprehend the entirety of God’s Revelation to mankind, the Divine Person, Jesus Christ, and the OT prophetic account leading up to that point?

 

[Spock]

Hi,
You sound so much like the skeptical streak I have in my personality that constantly questions everything. So I can’t resist responding, even though your post was directed to someone else’s comments.

I see now why I felt a kinship to you. Questioning is good.

Jesus did mean what He said. I think part of the purpose of what he said was to show our lack of faith. Another was to affirm the power of prayer. Yet another was to get us thinking about it. Pondering Jesus’ statement can lead to all sorts of insights.

Yes, that is one possible answer. I fail to see the power of intercessory prayer, of course. The meditative prayer is a whole different issue, but here here we talk about the intercessory kind.

If one has faith, why would he pray for something that goes against God’s will?

Partly because even the faithful one has no idea what God’s will might be. Now, I can uderstand why praying to win the jackpot on the lottery will not be granted. But many people of goodwill do pray for healing the sick, to remove wars, in general for the betterment of circumstances for the whole mankind. Is that also against God’s will?

So the faithful person will pray for things that align with God’s will. For example, we will pray that we grow in virtue, or that certain people come to have faith. Do you have a double-blind experiment that tests if sincere prayer for the pray-er to grow in virtue is effective? I would like to read about it or participate in it.

No, that would be unmeasurable. The point is that praing for something which can be measured is a no-no - precisely because it would be construed as a testing device. You are only supposed to pray for either something that will happen anyway, or for something that cannot be measured.

You should consider praying for increased understanding of these topics you discuss online. Ask God to help you understand why people believe, and to give you faith. If you can ask with sincerity, and not with the purpose of testing God, then I think your prayer will be effective. Unfortunately it might be impossible for you to do that

How could I pray sincerely to someone whose existence I cannot believe in? Indeed that is impossible.

 

[Spock]

Now, if you’d be so kind, could answer a couple questions for me?

I am glad to oblige.

Have you been hurt personally by some Christian that increased you skepticism of Christianity?

Never. When I was a believer (not Catholic, though) the minister in the church I attended was a most wonderful, kind and lovable person. I still remeber him fondly. I never had a bad experience either from him, or anyone of faith. As I grew up, I simply “grew out” of faith.

Is that some moral principal held by Christians that is an impediment to belief in Christianity, even if you other questions were answered?

Yes, there are a few of that kind. The Catholic Church’s stance regarding sexuality is particularly repulsive to me. As I said before, nothing I (as an atheist) say can be as disrespectful to the Almighty Creator of Everything then the Church’s assertion that this Most High Being has nothing better to do than playing a Peeping Tom, and judge what two loving people do with other in the privacy of their bedroom. In other words, one of the greatest impediments is the message put forth by the apologists themselves.

But the main problem is that I just cannot see any reason to assume the existence of any “deity”. Especially not a “benevolent” one.

Do you accept that if we believe in an infinite God, we must acknowledge certain things as mysteries, even if we have some knowledge of them, because we logically or reasonably be expected to comprehend the entirety of God’s Revelation to mankind, the Divine Person, Jesus Christ, and the OT prophetic account leading up to that point?

Yes, if you believe in an “infinite” God, and then lots of things are “mysteries”. But, I don’t. And those alleged mysteries are simply contradictions, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Man]

Yes, there are a few of that kind. The Catholic Church’s stance regarding sexuality is particularly repulsive to me. As I said before, nothing I (as an atheist) say can be as disrespectful to the Almighty Creator of Everything then the Church’s assertion that this Most High Being has nothing better to do than playing a Peeping Tom, and judge what two loving people do with other in the privacy of their bedroom. In other words, one of the greatest impediments is the message put forth by the apologists themselves.

But the main problem is that I just cannot see any reason to assume the existence of any “deity”. Especially not a “benevolent” one.

Even if following those rules on sexuality are causally related to longer healthier marriage, healthier populations, and more educated and behaved children?

Perhaps the fixation on sex is not God’s at all…

You seem to be thinking in a very dark way if you do not see any reason to believe in a benevolent God. You see the mystery of evil and suffering, but undervalue the mystery of goodness.

Yes, if you believe in an “infinite” God, and then lots of things are “mysteries”. But, I don’t. And those alleged mysteries are simply contradictions, as far as I am concerned.

When scientific studies result in contradictions are we to just disregard the whole thing, possibly because it is just too hard? I don’t think you believe that.

 

[Spock]

Even if following those rules on sexuality are causally related to longer healthier marriage, healthier populations, and more educated and behaved children?

There is no proof of that.

Perhaps the fixation on sex is not God’s at all…

Of course not. The fixation is on the part of the apologists. Do you know the old joke about the definition of puritanism? It is: “The haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun”.

You seem to be thinking in a very dark way if you do not see any reason to believe in a benevolent God. You see the mystery of evil and suffering, but undervalue the mystery of goodness.

I see no mystery at all. All I can say that the unnecessary suffering in the world is overwhelming, and the apologists must resort to all sorts of tricks to “explain it away”. And those trickeries simply do not work.

When scientific studies result in contradictions are we to just disregard the whole thing, possibly because it is just too hard? I don’t think you believe that.

If the results are contradicted by reality, the hypotheses must be discarded or modified. To stick to the hypotheses in such cases does not lead anywhere.

 

[Man]

There is no proof of that.

Of course not. The fixation is on the part of the apologists. Do you know the old joke about the definition of puritanism? It is: “The haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun”.

I see no mystery at all. All I can say that the unnecessary suffering in the world is overwhelming, and the apologists must resort to all sorts of tricks to “explain it away”. And those trickeries simply do not work.

If the results are contradicted by reality, the hypotheses must be discarded or modified. To stick to the hypotheses in such cases does not lead anywhere.

There is no proof of what? Moral sexual behavior keeping people STD free and happily married, you have not looked.

The mystery of suffering is partially considering free will. If you believe free will is good or something akin to free will is good, then why is suffering surprising. OR, would the love of a machine is programmed to assert mean as much as that of one that could choose?

But, there are explanations for most of the contradictions. Maybe we should just not accept them? That way we can obstruct the discussion regarding God based on our preconceived notions?

 

[Los_Angeles]

Indeed he said: “Whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go to the Father”. That is a very strong promise. He also said: “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell the moutain, go yonder, and it will go”. (Not verbatim quotations). Also an explicit promise. Did you try it? Did the mountain move?

To preempt the usual response, obviously Jesus did not mean “everything”, when he said “everything” (which is sloppy wording on his part). He must have meant: “if the prayer was what God otherwise intended”. “If it be thy will…” is the form most people use. So, why issue intercessory prayers at all? “If it be thy will, please perform this…”? If it is God’s will, he will do it anyhow. If it is against his will, he will not do it, even if you pray for it. Not to mention that God is immutable, he cannot be influenced by prayer.

I cannot resist to quote from Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:

To pray (verb): To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.

What would an acceptable answer be to you to remove your skepticism for the “moving the mountain” question?

I don’t claim to have all the answers, so if I took the time to do the research for you and came up with an answer how do I know that you would accept the answer or just remain perpetually skeptical?

Spock:

Double blind tests are the only kind, which can separate the actual results from the placebo effects.

The patients are divided into two groups. In the first group there are the patients for whom prayer is uttered in a systematic fashion (Group A). The other group is the control group, for whom no systematic prayer is performed (Group B). The point is that neither the doctor, nor the patient is aware of who belongs to which group. At the end of the experiment it is eveluated if the patients in Group A show a significant benefit which does not occur in Group B. Significant beyond the statistical fluctuations. There were never any positive results.

Who is doing the praying? What is the prayer being prayed? What religion do they belong to? Are they praying with the intent of “testing” God?

If you are saying that there are two groups that are “equally” sick, then how could a sincere prayer be performed by anyone knowing that out of two groups, one group would not be equally prayed for?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anthema.

 

[The_Exodus]

Spock,

Wanted to bump, since you may have missed my response to you on post 49.

 

[Spock]

There is no proof of what? Moral sexual behavior keeping people STD free and happily married, you have not looked.

I was not talking about unbridled promiscuity. I was talking about disregarding the procreative part of sexuality, which has nothing to do with STD’s, and which actually enhances the happiness. I was talking about masturbation, which is predominantly practiced by teenagers, and which teaches them about their own bodies, their own likes and dislikes. Sexuality is not an easy “stuff”, people differ in the preferences. To learn about their own bodies is a must, if one wishes to have a happy sexual life. I was talking about the consensual activity of adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Marriage is not a necessary factor in obtaining happiness. I was talking about active birth control, which liberates people from the possibly unwanted consequences of healthy sexual behavior. All of these are prohibited under the Catholic teaching, and these teachings make no sense at all.

The mystery of suffering is partially considering free will. If you believe free will is good or something akin to free will is good, then why is suffering surprising. OR, would the love of a machine is programmed to assert mean as much as that of one that could choose?

From a constructor’s point of view, free will is like a computer “bug”, an unwanted deviation from the expected behavior. When a constructor wishes to create something, he establishes the tolerance for accepted and unaccepted behavior and puts in proper measures that the behavior will stay within the desired parameters. If I would be a constructor of a sentient car (for example), I would grant it a certain amount of freedom. This is a good way to avoid “micromanagement”, not to worry about every conceivable situation and program for it (which is impossible anyhow), to give general “guidelines” of acceptable behavior and absolute, unsurpassable control to prevent anything undesired. For example, the car would be free to adjust its behavior, according to road and weather conditions. But the car would not be free to choose and drive over a cliff. In a very good sense, something similar is applicable to us, except the amout of freedom we “enjoy” is way too much. Why should we be “free” to actively harm others? Only a lousy contructor would grant that kind of freedom - provided of course that the construcor considers it undesirable. (If the constructor wants and prefers that kind of behavior, wants to watch how much pain a suffering can we inflict on each other, then that is a whole different ballgame).

Generally speaking, there are three possible ways to make sure that the creation “works, as intended”. One is to put in external controls, where the circumstances will not allow unwanted behavior. (Like we are unable to kill by simply “wishing” to kill.) Another one to establish internal control, where we would not even think about killing (like some very good people would never consider it as an option). The third one is to allow to kill, to be able to desire to kill, and then introduce a command, like “thou shalt not kill”. Of all the three possible solutions, the third one is downright despicable. Let’s be blunt about it, this “solution” is the sign of a lazy and/or incompetent constructor, who did not go through the motions of doing a proper job, and uses the “command” to hope that his creation will work, “as intended”. If I were the supervisor of such a constructor, I would fire him on the spot for incompetence.

You mention “love”, but I am unsure which definition of love are you using here. Primarily love is an emotion, which is not under volitional control. If you talk about “sacrificial” love (agape), then there is absolutely no need for free will. Consider a human firefighter, who risks his own life to rescue someone from a fire, and compare his act to that of a “robotic” firefighter, who has no choice, but go in and perform the rescue. Why would anyone (especially the rescued person) care about the volitional aspect of the human firefighter? Makes no sense at all to “value” the human over the “robot”.

But, there are explanations for most of the contradictions. Maybe we should just not accept them? That way we can obstruct the discussion regarding God based on our preconceived notions?

When I talk about God, I always talk about the human concept of God. This human concept, as introduced by the apologists is loaded with contradictions, loosely defined attibutes and outright nonsense.

 

[Spock]

What would an acceptable answer be to you to remove your skepticism for the “moving the mountain” question?

I don’t claim to have all the answers, so if I took the time to do the research for you and came up with an answer how do I know that you would accept the answer or just remain perpetually skeptical?

I don’t know, surprise me. Here is the summary of the contradiction:

1. If God is immutable, then no matter what we pray for, he will not do it, if it is against his will.
2. God will do whatever his will is, whether we pray for it or not.
3. Therefore it is futile to issue a supplicative or intercessory prayer.

I see no way to explain this contradiction. But, maybe you can do it. As I said, surprise me.

Who is doing the praying? What is the prayer being prayed? What religion do they belong to? Are they praying with the intent of “testing” God?

If you are saying that there are two groups that are “equally” sick, then how could a sincere prayer be performed by anyone knowing that out of two groups, one group would not be equally prayed for?

That is an excellent and serious objection. It is impossible to make sure that “someone, somewhere will not pray for the control group”, so true, double blind experiment is impossible. All you can prove that the prayer of the selected group of people is ineffective.

 

[Los_Angeles]

I don’t know, surprise me. Here is the summary of the contradiction:

1. If God is immutable, then no matter what we pray for, he will not do it, if it is against his will.
2. God will do whatever his will is, whether we pray for it or not.
3. Therefore it is futile to issue a supplicative or intercessory prayer.

I see no way to explain this contradiction. But, maybe you can do it. As I said, surprise me.

Have you not considered that God could have created that person at that place and time, becuase He knew that person **would **choose to pray?

Therefore 3) is incorrect.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Spock]

Have you not considered that God could have created that person at that place and time, becuase He knew that person **would **choose to pray?

Therefore 3) is incorrect.

I have no idea about the relevance of your post. Is God immutable? If he is then no prayer can influence his decision. If he can be influenced, then he is not immutable.

 

[Los_Angeles]

I have no idea about the relevance of your post. Is God immutable? If he is then no prayer can influence his decision. If he can be influenced, then he is not immutable.

Okay I will attempt to explain further based on my understanding.

If you chose to pray, regardless of the outcome of your prayer request, could we not reason that God knew beforehand that you would pray? If we agree that God did know beforehand that you would pray and God is immutable, but we as a people are not immutable, could it not be possible that God created you at a specific time and place becuase He knew you would pray at the specific time and place that God wanted to you pray?

In other words, your free will and the will of God could be in agreement because you are submitting to the will of God.

Since God is Love (1 John 4:16) why should it be any other way?

Matthew 6:9-13

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

[Emphasis added]

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[JDaniel]

I have no idea about the relevance of your post. Is God immutable? If he is then no prayer can influence his decision. If he can be influenced, then he is not immutable.

My good friend:

Many who come to this forum, theist or atheist, come here as regular people, that is, they are not philosophers. That’s probably a good thing! Wasn’t it Talleyrand who said, the purport of language is to conceal thought? Thus, the problem has always been to get at the thought at the back of the language. And, what makes it even worse is that whenever a philosopher comes to these pages, he usually brings with him a new language, in many respects. So, I share your lament.

You are almost absolutely correct when you say, “[If] God is immutable, then no prayer can influence his decision. If he can be influenced, then he is not immutable.” God is immutable. I don’t see prayer as a supplication that necessarily ‘changes’ God’s mind. Rather, I see it as that duty (not a great word, in this application!) which we are to perform as one who is destined for Heaven. Thus, it can be said - with extreme conditionality - that he who does not pray, will not see Heaven.

Now, what are some of those “conditions?” Firstly, I would suggest that a chosen soul is one that will - at some point, in his life - begin speaking with God. What point might that be? It might be, all other things considered, in the last moment he is alive before his death. It might be at any fraction of time during the continuum of one’s life. So, he who does not overtly pray through out his life, may still be a chosen one. God is pre-influenced precisely because he knows who will and who won’t. Secondly, God emphatically expects us to Love and care for our brothers and sisters. I do not mean literal brothers and sisters only. I mean, all of mankind. This is Christ’s principle command, from which the Ten Commandments automatically flow. (Yes! I said “automatically!”)

This measly command is all he wants. I have seen contentment in those that practice it through their good works. I have seen contentment on those previously in pain who are not as a consequent of it. If you want God to do it, all at once, it is not going to happen. This life is trivial. The afterlife, with God, is not. That is why Christ could be killed - to get past this life! To reunite.

In another similar thread, I indicated that I believe God knows the route a man’s life will take at the moment of that man’s creation. God is said to ‘roll out creation.’ Before the existentiality (sorry, more philosophy talk) of a being, when there is nothing (except God and what he has already rolled out, speaking sequentially - trying hard not to reference ‘time’), I believe God intends that each of his creatures (human) “see his face.” It is in this way that God can seemingly alter things.

Furthermore, God is Omniscient, thus he may well know what will be the wants of all of his creatures, and he may pre-provide them, or not. But, it is all part of the roll-out. I cannot imagine him altering the creation event countless trillions of times along the way. Instead, God’s Providence is already at work.

Did I speak with you with respect to your desire for better communication? If there is some word that I’ve used that seems out of place, please let me know. You will no doubt have problems with some of what I said. I promise I will do my best to explicate them.

With all due respect, God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

My good friend:

Many who come to this forum, theist or atheist, come here as regular people, that is, they are not philosophers. That’s probably a good thing! Wasn’t it Talleyrand who said, the purport of language is to conceal thought? Thus, the problem has always been to get at the thought at the back of the language. And, what makes it even worse is that whenever a philosopher comes to these pages, he usually brings with him a new language, in many respects. So, I share your lament.

You are almost absolutely correct when you say, “[If] God is immutable, then no prayer can influence his decision. If he can be influenced, then he is not immutable.” God is immutable. I don’t see prayer as a supplication that necessarily ‘changes’ God’s mind. Rather, I see it as that duty (not a great word, in this application!) which we are to perform as one who is destined for Heaven. Thus, it can be said - with extreme conditionality - that he who does not pray, will not see Heaven.

Now, what are some of those “conditions?” Firstly, I would suggest that a chosen soul is one that will - at some point, in his life - begin speaking with God. What point might that be? It might be, all other things considered, in the last moment he is alive before his death. It might be at any fraction of time during the continuum of one’s life. So, he who does not overtly pray through out his life, may still be a chosen one. God is pre-influenced precisely because he knows who will and who won’t. Secondly, God emphatically expects us to Love and care for our brothers and sisters. I do not mean literal brothers and sisters only. I mean, all of mankind. This is Christ’s principle command, from which the Ten Commandments automatically flow. (Yes! I said “automatically!”)

This measly command is all he wants. I have seen contentment in those that practice it through their good works. I have seen contentment on those previously in pain who are not as a consequent of it. If you want God to do it, all at once, it is not going to happen. This life is trivial. The afterlife, with God, is not. That is why Christ could be killed - to get past this life! To reunite.

In another similar thread, I indicated that I believe God knows the route a man’s life will take at the moment of that man’s creation. God is said to ‘roll out creation.’ Before the existentiality (sorry, more philosophy talk) of a being, when there is nothing (except God and what he has already rolled out, speaking sequentially - trying hard not to reference ‘time’), I believe God intends that each of his creatures (human) “see his face.” It is in this way that God can seemingly alter things.

Furthermore, God is Omniscient, thus he may well know what will be the wants of all of his creatures, and he may pre-provide them, or not. But, it is all part of the roll-out. I cannot imagine him altering the creation event countless trillions of times along the way. Instead, God’s Providence is already at work.

Did I speak with you with respect to your desire for better communication? If there is some word that I’ve used that seems out of place, please let me know. You will no doubt have problems with some of what I said. I promise I will do my best to explicate them.

With all due respect, God bless,
jd

I am sure I see now where the misunderstaning is. There are two kinds of prayers: meditative and supplicative (or intercessory). I am only talking about the supplicative type when I say that it is not a rational activity - for the reasons already given in the previous posts. The meditative type, where one seeks unity with God is a whole different ballgame. From the believer’s perspective it a completely rational undertaking, he believes in God, and wishes to get close to God. Does this clarify what I was asserting?

 

[Los_Angeles]

I am sure I see now where the misunderstaning is. There are two kinds of prayers: meditative and supplicative (or intercessory). I am only talking about the supplicative type when I say that it is not a rational activity - for the reasons already given in the previous posts. The meditative type, where one seeks unity with God is a whole different ballgame. From the believer’s perspective it a completely rational undertaking, he believes in God, and wishes to get close to God. Does this clarify what I was asserting?

As I understand it, unity with God in life on earth comes from becoming and/or being Catholic and doings things like going to Confession, Penance, then recieving Holy Communion. Then ultimately, unity with God is when we die and go to Heaven.

Again, you made the claim that:

Spock:

1. If God is immutable, then no matter what we pray for, he will not do it, if it is against his will.
2. God will do whatever his will is, whether we pray for it or not.
3. Therefore it is futile to issue a supplicative or intercessory prayer.

If one of the definitions or properties of God is that God is immutable (unchangeable) then it is still possible for the will of an unchanging God to be to grant the request to a prayer by a person who does not know the future for something to happen if it is in God’s will because God knew you would pray for it beforehand.

Now if you object and say something like “well what if I don’t pray” then God knew that beforehand as well and in that case I can pray for you if you want me to.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[JDaniel]

I am sure I see now where the misunderstaning is. There are two kinds of prayers: meditative and supplicative (or intercessory). I am only talking about the supplicative type when I say that it is not a rational activity - for the reasons already given in the previous posts. The meditative type, where one seeks unity with God is a whole different ballgame. From the believer’s perspective it a completely rational undertaking, he believes in God, and wishes to get close to God. Does this clarify what I was asserting?

Yes. There are at least those two kinds of prayer. But, we must be careful not to throw out supplicative prayer with the bath water, just because it’s difficult to fathom. We still have to reconcile the unfolding of Creation with biblical passages such as Luke 11:9. But, that doesn’t mean that God stops what he’s doing to consider a single prayer and make a decision regarding it. What I’m trying to say is that answering such prayers is anticipatory in nature. The supplication is, or, supplications are, already known and the answers are worked into creation’s roll-out, in time. There remains no change in God. It is impossible for an Infinity to be a composite. That’s how I see it.

I know: more concepts that you may/will have problems with, but, it seems that men have been considering these hard to understand concepts for several thousand years. So, it’s not that they recently showed up only because it took modern man to discover them. The power to confuse has been with us for much longer than that.

As you implied, many people do not think these sorts of things through. Last week, a professional football player publicly blamed God for his failure to catch a pass that could have won his team the game. I understand that later, after some considerations, he retracted those statements. Chance, luck, fortune, coincidence are real exigencies that, because of their inexplicable nature, almost always seem to be attributed to a supernatural agency. If one is not disabused of that notion through life, it occasionally crops up as a faux pas, of sorts.

Does this make sense?

God bless,
jd