You probably don't really believe in Prayer

[Nan_S]

Oh, I would take issue with that one. Disasters and tragedies befall all kinds of people, including Christians. Misfortune is not always a sign of God’s displeasure. I recall the words of the Lord to the Jews:

Luke 13:
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilæans were sinners above all the Galilæans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

zerinus

The OP kept bringing up the tsunami specifically.

The scripture you quoted simply points out that not everyone who rejects God or sins is punished according to their due. Good Lord, imagine the bloodbath we’d see if that happened.

An apparent abatement of temporal punishment doesn’t mean we are holier than the guys next door. And Jesus’ reply “Except ye repent ye shall likewise perish” pretty well answers the question.

My point was that those who have ignored or turned their backs on Jesus shouldn’t expect His help. Nor should we let an atheist suggest otherwise.

 

[zerinus]

The OP kept bringing up the tsunami specifically.

The scripture you quoted simply points out that not everyone who rejects God or sins is punished according to their due. Good Lord, imagine the bloodbath we’d see if that happened.

An apparent abatement of temporal punishment doesn’t mean we are holier than the guys next door. And Jesus’ reply “Except ye repent ye shall likewise perish” pretty well answers the question.

My point was that those who have ignored or turned their backs on Jesus shouldn’t expect His help. Nor should we let an atheist suggest otherwise.

They were not more sinful than the rest. Therefore their tragic deaths were not the consequence of their sins–otherwise why kill them and not the rest?

zerinus

 

[BeeSweet]

If you think that is admirable, you then must admit that the faith of Christian Scientists with respect to the “Petition” aspect of prayer is more admirable than that of Catholics.

I said admirable, not “more admirable”. You need for me to have said “more admirable” to further your argument, but that’s not what I said, so my words are of no help to you.

This is the point of my thread. The fact that you think it is admirable leads me to believe that it is the type of faith that you strive to achieve, but just aren’t quite there yet.

I don’t know how you would have been lead to believe such a thing from anything I wrote.

I think it is actually good that you aren’t there yet because it really isn’t admirable or something you should strive for. If your child has an ear infection that can be easily cured with antibiotics it would be foolish to risk permanent damage to their hearing by refusing the medicine and praying instead.

I don’t necessarily understand where your mind is in saying “you aren’t there yet”, but I agree the use of medicine should not be superseded by the use of prayer alone.

I don’t think what Christian Scientists do is admirable. It demonstrates greater faith than what most Catholics posses, but it’s not admirable.

I’m not going to have time to explain to you what faith is. It’s already taken me more time than I wish to spend trying to explain to you what prayer is, and you don’t seem interested.

My thread is just focused on the Petition aspect of prayer.

You didn’t previously make any distinction. Did you previously know there was a distinction?

 

[Nan_S]

They were not more sinful than the rest. Therefore their tragic deaths were not the consequence of their sins–otherwise why kill them and not the rest?

zerinus

That’s a non-sequiter.

Try looking at it this way:
Two murderers each kill someone. One murderer is caught, tried, and sent to jail for life. The other avoids detection. Your suggestion is like saying that unless both are jailed the punishment of the first is unjust.

The murderer who is jailed for life suffers the consequence of his sin. The fact that the second murderer avoids detection has nothing to do with the justice imposed on the first, nor does it mean that the jailing of the first was anything other than the consequence for his sin.

Jesus’ point in the scripture passage you quoted was that we should not be too smug, thinking that an apparent lack of punishment on us means we are more righteous than the others. Jesus warned us twice in that passage that if we didn’t straighten up we would eventually get ours. It’s kind of a “three strikes and you’re out, and you’ve already used up two” warning.

Does that clarify things?

Nan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How do the Christian Scientists pray? What is the definition of prayer according to the Christian Science system of belief? I think that I have a reasonably good understanding of the meaning of prayer in Catholicism; but your post leaves me in the dark about the meaning of prayer in Christian Science. How does your prayer, or your definition of prayer, differ form the Catholic or any other kind of prayer?

zerinus

If “All is God and God is all” as Mrs. Eddy says in “Science and Health”, it’s not clear what place there is for prayer in Christian Science. ​

 

[kellie]

Yeah I understand how you guys explain the obvious failure of prayer. If your sister is cured then you say “look God cured her! God is great!” If she dies, then you say “God is still great, he brought her to his kingdom!” If she’s permanently comotosed, then you’d invent something else like “her soul is content, even though her physical body is suffering.”

It’s very easy for theists to rationalize these things, because you have no logical rules to follow and don’t provide proof for anything.

It is called faith, not rationalism, and doesn’t need proof

 

[zerinus]

That’s a non-sequiter.

Try looking at it this way:
Two murderers each kill someone. One murderer is caught, tried, and sent to jail for life. The other avoids detection. Your suggestion is like saying that unless both are jailed the punishment of the first is unjust.

The murderer who is jailed for life suffers the consequence of his sin. The fact that the second murderer avoids detection has nothing to do with the justice imposed on the first, nor does it mean that the jailing of the first was anything other than the consequence for his sin.

Jesus’ point in the scripture passage you quoted was that we should not be too smug, thinking that an apparent lack of punishment on us means we are more righteous than the others. Jesus warned us twice in that passage that if we didn’t straighten up we would eventually get ours. It’s kind of a “three strikes and you’re out, and you’ve already used up two” warning.

Does that clarify things?

Nan

Not exactly. The analogy does not apply. The rest did not “avoid detection”. They were all known to God as having been equally sinful. Jesus informs us that the reason why they died was not because they were more sinful. The people on whom the “tower of Siloam” fell, and killed them, that was an accident. God allows accidents to happen; otherwise you would have to conclude that all the people who die in accidents, car crashes, air crashes, train crashed, ships being sunk etc were all sinful, and suffered for their sins. I don’t think so.

Similarly, those “whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,” were not necessarily being punished for their sins; otherwise you would have to conclude that everyone who gets murdered by a criminal is receiving a just punishment for his sins. I don’t accept that. God allows the wicked to inflict suffering and death on the righteous so that they can reveal their true intent, and the judgement that God will pass on them on judgement day will be just. Were those 2000 innocent children whom Pilate killed because he thought baby Jesus might be among them also sinners, and were being punished for their sins? Was John the Baptist a sinner, and was beheaded by Herod for his sins?

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

If “All is God and God is all” as Mrs. Eddy says in “Science and Health”, it’s not clear what place there is for prayer in Christian Science. ​

That is what I am trying to understand. He says, “On the other hand, I see Christian Scientists as true believers in prayer.” But his definition of prayer doesn’t seem to be the same as everyone elses. I want him to clarify that for me, but it looks like he has disappeared, and doesn’t answer posts any more.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Not exactly. The analogy does not apply. The rest did not “avoid detection”. They were all known to God as having been equally sinful. Jesus informs us that the reason why they died was not because they were more sinful. The people on whom the “tower of Siloam” fell, and killed them, that was an accident. God allows accidents to happen; otherwise you would have to conclude that all the people who die in accidents, car crashes, air crashes, train crashed, ships being sunk etc were all sinful, and suffered for their sins. I don’t think so.

Similarly, those “whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,” were not necessarily being punished for their sins; otherwise you would have to conclude that everyone who gets murdered by a criminal is receiving a just punishment for his sins. I don’t accept that. God allows the wicked to inflict suffering and death on the righteous so that they can reveal their true intent, and the judgement that God will pass on them on judgement day will be just. Were those 2000 innocent children whom Pilate killed because he thought baby Jesus might be among them also sinners, and were being punished for their sins? Was John the Baptist a sinner, and was beheaded by Herod for his sins?

zerinus

Sorry, I meant to say Herod, not Pilate. See Matthew 2:16-18.

zerinus

 

[valient_Lucy]

Earlier a poster related the story of the man praying in the flood. It’s a great story about the answer to prayer coming through our fellow man. If you didn’t read it, it’s on the first page.

Anyways, along those lines, has the OP ever considered that modern medicine is the answer to the prayer of hundreds of thousands of men and women throughout the centuries that mankind be delivered from sickness and ill health?

Surely those suffering from the bubonic plague and their loved ones prayed, likewise for scarlet fever, smallpox, polio, etc. etc. God answered by providing us with a man who said to himself, “Galileo saw something new when he turned his telescope to the stars. What if I look really close at this piece of wood?” Not much later, germ theory was developed and then antibiotics, and vaccines, etc.

The answer to the prayers of thousands. Don’t be ridiculous and refuse the helicopter!

That’s the way I always felt. Antibiotics and medicene are answers to prayer. We pray for healing, and God answers the prayer through medicene. We believe that God often works through ordinary means, as well as extraoridnary means. As a previous poster said, to demand that God to heal through extraordinary means every single time demonstrates a lack of faith, and an inabillity to see the workings of God through every day life.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You’re not reading the text of the bible. It says nothing of using surgeons or science. Ask and you shall receive!

Kinda’ hyper-literal there…

Hmmm…I took you off the list so I could see what you had to say…but now I remember why I put you on my ignore list in the first place.

Imagine23:

My thread is just focused on the Petition aspect of prayer.

Apparently you’re not grasping that prayer is a non-lethal form of prophesying. People don’t get stoned to death for having their prayers unanswered.

When people pray, they’re not changing God’s mind and forcing God to take another course of action that he did not actually already know.

When people pray, God is changing their mind as he leads them by the Spirit to take the most wise course of action, such as medical help for example.

Some people read a passage from James 5:15-18 as follows…

And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

…to mean that if they really, really, really pray hard, then God will do something, even change his mind-- as if that were even possible. But that’s not what the passage means.

As Romans 8:26 states, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

So when someone has a prayer answered, it doesn’t mean that they changed God’s mind. It means that they were open to God’s Spirit and God truly prophectically revealed to them the best course of action to take based on future events that would most certainly take place.

Anyway, take care.

 

[Nan_S]

Not exactly. The analogy does not apply. The rest did not “avoid detection”. They were all known to God as having been equally sinful. Jesus informs us that the reason why they died was not because they were more sinful. The people on whom the “tower of Siloam” fell, and killed them, that was an accident. God allows accidents to happen; otherwise you would have to conclude that all the people who die in accidents, car crashes, air crashes, train crashed, ships being sunk etc were all sinful, and suffered for their sins. I don’t think so.

Similarly, those “whose blood -]Pilate/-] Herod had mingled with their sacrifices,” were not necessarily being punished for their sins; otherwise you would have to conclude that everyone who gets murdered by a criminal is receiving a just punishment for his sins. I don’t accept that. God allows the wicked to inflict suffering and death on the righteous so that they can reveal their true intent, and the judgement that God will pass on them on judgement day will be just. Were those 2000 innocent children whom Pilate killed because he thought baby Jesus might be among them also sinners, and were being punished for their sins? Was John the Baptist a sinner, and was beheaded by Herod for his sins?

zerinus

I see your point now. Of course, looking back with 20/20 hindsight we perceive these as accidents. I remind you, though, that in the 21st century our perspective is very much different than that of the 1st century and earlier.

The disciples in those days still clung to the belief that misfortune was a sin punishment. Their questions about misfortune and sin clearly reflect that attitude. Remember our discussion about Jn 9:2 ‘And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”’

Our 21st-century binoculars might have us say the blindness was due to the baby’s mother having an infection in the birth canal, and if the Jews had known to put drops of silver iodide in the baby’s eyes like we do now the blindness could have been prevented. It was an unfortunate accident due to ignorance.

But Jesus doesn’t say the blindness was an accident. Jesus takes a different position. He goes on to give the disciples an explanation they didn’t expect. The man’s blindness was necessary for the Jews to see and recognize the power and glory of God. The same basic idea applies to the fall of Tower of Siloam, except that the Siloam lesson made a completely different point.

Nan

 

[exoflare]

The flaws in the OP’s understanding of how prayer works all boil down to this: He assumes that Christians believe God is somehow forced to do everything that people tell Him to.

 

[zerinus]

I see your point now. Of course, looking back with 20/20 hindsight we perceive these as accidents. I remind you, though, that in the 21st century our perspective is very much different than that of the 1st century and earlier.

The disciples in those days still clung to the belief that misfortune was a sin punishment. Their questions about misfortune and sin clearly reflect that attitude.

I agree that in those days people might have been more prone to think along those lines; but the important thing is that Jesus corrects them. He informs them that that line of thinking is incorrect.

Remember our discussion about Jn 9:2 ‘And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”’

Our 21st-century binoculars might have us say the blindness was due to the baby’s mother having an infection in the birth canal, and if the Jews had known to put drops of silver iodide in the baby’s eyes like we do now the blindness could have been prevented. It was an unfortunate accident due to ignorance.

But Jesus doesn’t say the blindness was an accident. Jesus takes a different position. He goes on to give the disciples an explanation they didn’t expect. The man’s blindness was necessary for the Jews to see and recognize the power and glory of God. The same basic idea applies to the fall of Tower of Siloam, except that the Siloam lesson made a completely different point.

I think that that is correct up to a point. I don’t think that anybody dies if God does not want them to die. Nothing ever happens that comes as a surprise to God. Nothing happens that God could not have prevented from happening if He had chosen to do so. It is ultimately God who decides who should go and who should stay—and when. There may be an infinite variety of reasons why God may allow one man to die and another man to live. Everybody has to die sometime; and God is the ultimate decision maker how, when, or where. There may be an infinite variety of reasons why God decided when someone should go and when to stay—which may be totally unrelated to their state of righteousness or wickedness. It would be awfully short-sighted and presumptuous to think that one can read the mind of God, and attribute all misfortune and accident to the state of a man’s sinfulness or righteousness.

zerinus

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The flaws in the OP’s understanding of how prayer works all boil down to this: He assumes that Christians believe God is somehow forced to do everything that people tell Him to.

I got the impression that OP thinks that if Christians really have faith, they (and those they pray for ?) will be exempted from suffering.​

If only !

Of course, that may be a complete misunderstanding of the OP’s position. ##

 

[Imagine23]

I got the impression that OP thinks that if Christians really have faith, they (and those they pray for ?) will be exempted from suffering.​

If only !

Of course, that may be a complete misunderstanding of the OP’s position. ##

Yeah, you guys both are missing it. I can repeat myself all day long. My point is that with respect to the petition aspect of prayer, Christians do not really believe that such petitions in and of themselves, are enough to accomplish what they are praying for.

I’ve used the medical example with Christian Science as an example. Christian Scientists believe (against all evidence to the contrary) that the petition aspect of prayer is so powerful and effective, that they can forgo actual modern medicine in favor of asking god.

The faith of Christians is not that strong.

It’s easy to say you believe this and that but actions speak louder than words.

 

[Imagine23]

Kinda’ hyper-literal there…

Hmmm…I took you off the list so I could see what you had to say…but now I remember why I put you on my ignore list in the first place.

Apparently you’re not grasping that prayer is a non-lethal form of prophesying. People don’t get stoned to death for having their prayers unanswered.

When people pray, they’re not changing God’s mind and forcing God to take another course of action that he did not actually already know.

When people pray, God is changing their mind as he leads them by the Spirit to take the most wise course of action, such as medical help for example.

Some people read a passage from James 5:15-18 as follows…

…to mean that if they really, really, really pray hard, then God will do something, even change his mind-- as if that were even possible. But that’s not what the passage means.

As Romans 8:26 states, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

So when someone has a prayer answered, it doesn’t mean that they changed God’s mind. It means that they were open to God’s Spirit and God truly prophectically revealed to them the best course of action to take based on future events that would most certainly take place.

Anyway, take care.

You thought you wanted to ignore me Ex Nihilo but you can’t. My threads are more popular than yours.

That James passage sure reads as if you will be cured from sickness if you so ask in prayer. Read the plain meaning of words, too much conjecture causes confusion.

Sometimes the words in the bible mean what they mean. As an example, the bible condones slavery. It was an accepted practice at the time which is why the humans that wrote the bible included instructions on how to treat slaves.

The statement that we do not know what we ought to pray for makes no sense. That implies we don’t know what is good for us. How can we go around determining what is good for others if we don’t know what’s good for ourselves?

 

[Imagine23]

That’s the way I always felt. Antibiotics and medicene are answers to prayer. We pray for healing, and God answers the prayer through medicene. We believe that God often works through ordinary means, as well as extraoridnary means. As a previous poster said, to demand that God to heal through extraordinary means every single time demonstrates a lack of faith, and an inabillity to see the workings of God through every day life.

It’s insulting to Galileo to imply that your God had anything to do with his accomplishments.

Let’s consider your theory. If that were the case, then God is incredibly slow at causing cures to become invented (often by atheists) and less than prolific. If, aah forget it, you don’t get it.

 

[Imagine23]

Illogical in whose mind? I believe in a creator God - it’s more logical to me, given that both the world and the universe are incredibly complex, that they came about by a created design than not. It’s more logical to the vast majority of people on this planet as well, who believe in a creator God. Who of the two of us is being less logical then?

As for “God’s greater plan”, again it logically follows that if the universe was designedly created then it’s sustained according to a greater design as well. Not a detailed one that admits of no possibility of variation and that happens against the will of those it’s applied to (hence the desirability and usefulness of petitionary prayer), but the type of plan a father makes for his children or a President or King for their country.

Maybe the universe was created, neither of us can say for certain. Why does it follow that its creator wasn’t created by something else, and so on and so on ad finitum? There’s no basis for you to assume your “God” wasn’t created by something else.

Our President’s plan for our country is similar to God’s Tsunamis, I’ll give you that one.

 

[Imagine23]

Z,

Imagine is not a Christian Scientist. S/he is an uncatechised ex-Catholic who is now atheist, trying to make us argue against what s/he imagines is Christian Scientist.

Nan

I’m not imagining anything. Christian Scientists in fact pray instead of seeking medical treatment. I personally knew one who did so and died as a result.

I don’t know if I qualify as an ex-Catholic. I was baptized and did communion but I was a baby and a kid when those events happened, not really qualified to make the decision to accept one brand of mythology over another.

I must remind you, you are also an atheist with respect to thousands of God.