Do you believe God intervenes & answers prayers?

[_Seven]

Do "prayers" work? Does "God" intervene? I think in these questions we are using 'generic' terms, 'rhetorically'--so-to-speak ;-)

Both terms, "prayer" and "God" have been used for a looonnnnggg time by both religious & nonreligious types... Some of the meanings traditionally attached to "prayer", as i've observed are more hopeful and/or wishful than promisary, definitly assured, or guaranteed... Some what similar to profanity and coloquialisms that fill gaps in conversations and vocabularies. Many times used with emotion as expressions of frustration, uncertainty and anxiety...

Does this mean concentration, visualization, meditation (and deep breathing:-) are not effective? No, because they do work--sometimes.

In reality, IF "prayer" was directed, not to "God" via the Prayer-box, but to the 'person' needing strength, understanding, support, comfort etc, as an energy/love flow from the concerned to the sufferer, it might be more sustaining and directly effective, as spirits/psyches link in ways we have yet to fully understand...

When humanity understands THEY, not "God" are responsible for pain AND healing, problems AND solutions, then, and only then, will Peace-prayers, and such be answered positively. Could be our faith would be better placed in ourselves than in "God"... Warm regards, Roger

I love this thought. It is possible to evolve into this connection with our Godly attributes and spirits, and still believe in God/Jesus. If we are children of God I believe He gives us the power through this "energy" to heal and connect with others in a way that many humans do not fully comprehend yet but some cultures have tapped into. Thinking "Celestine Prophecy".....

My prayers and thoughts have been changing after pondering over this. I have appreciated all the responses.

I had discussed this topic with a group of "Chapel Mormons" and they were unable to understand the point of my questions. They couldn't get past the LDS belief that God has a mission for them which is why He answers their prayers. They believe He allows the atrocities to happen because those millions of victims fulfilled their mission. UGGGG! So impossible to delve into deep questions with this kind of reasoning. The whole conversation I had to keep explaining what my concerns were with this belief but it fell on deaf ears. I think the majority of LDS believe this way because of the Mormon teachings that God saved the most righteous from the pre existence for our time, to be instruments in spreading the gospel. I can't see how anybody would be humble and believe in that.

It's such a relief to be here with people who get it.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Lucky 7! You said:

I love this thought. It is possible to evolve into this connection with our Godly attributes and spirits, and still believe in God/Jesus. If we are children of God I believe He gives us the power through this "energy" to heal and connect with others in a way that many humans do not fully comprehend yet but some cultures have tapped into. Thinking "Celestine Prophecy".....

My prayers and thoughts have been changing after pondering over this. I have appreciated all the responses.

I had discussed this topic with a group of "Chapel Mormons" and they were unable to understand the point of my questions. They couldn't get past the LDS belief that God has a mission for them which is why He answers their prayers. They believe He allows the atrocities to happen because those millions of victims fulfilled their mission. UGGGG! So impossible to delve into deep questions with this kind of reasoning. The whole conversation I had to keep explaining what my concerns were with this belief but it fell on deaf ears. I think the majority of LDS believe this way because of the Mormon teachings that God saved the most righteous from the pre existence for our time, to be instruments in spreading the gospel. I can't see how anybody would be humble and believe in that.

It's such a relief to be here with people who get it.

Yes it is. "Thank You for being here!"

What we call "religion" is sooooo difficult to understand with reason, and purpose, beyond the theological illogical that satisfied illiterate submissive masses conditioned to authoritarianism. Some things have changed: masses are less illiterate, submissiveness is not genderized as it one was. But authoritarians still hold sway in most institutions, simply structured that way for convenience.

However, Clergy, particularly LDS Clergy, still tend to deliver the "word of "God" that was never spoken. It is simply 'implied' by the scribes who handed it down and by those who reinterpreted it to strengthen the ecclesiatist at the expense of congregations who have been 'stipped' of their 'divinity' and spiritual powers, leaving them dependend & gullible. As it has long been...

The idea that one must be ordained/authorized (Authoritarian thinking) to represent "God" is THE scam that Jesus "revealed" when HE told the Scribes & Pharasses, "...you don't know "God"!" Then instructed his students how to live as "God" expected, ON THEIR OWN, by following 2-new-commandments!!!

It is my seriously considered opinon that "God", and "truth that makes one free"--a Jesusism--are knowable by those who "seek after those things, with real intent." That's scriptural. But, too easily dismissed by authoritarians who hold the reins, and set the fees... Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Do "prayers" work? Does "God" intervene? I think in these questions we are using 'generic' terms, 'rhetorically'--so-to-speak ;-)

Both terms, "prayer" and "God" have been used for a looonnnnggg time by both religious & nonreligious types... Some of the meanings traditionally attached to "prayer", as i've observed are more hopeful and/or wishful than promisary, definitly assured, or guaranteed... Some what similar to profanity and coloquialisms that fill gaps in conversations and vocabularies. Many times used with emotion as expressions of frustration, uncertainty and anxiety...

Does this mean concentration, visualization, meditation (and deep breathing:-) are not effective? No, because they do work--sometimes.

In reality, IF "prayer" was directed, not to "God" via the Prayer-box, but to the 'person' needing strength, understanding, support, comfort etc, as an energy/love flow from the concerned to the sufferer, it might be more sustaining and directly effective, as spirits/psyches link in ways we have yet to fully understand...

When humanity understands THEY, not "God" are responsible for pain AND healing, problems AND solutions, then, and only then, will Peace-prayers, and such be answered positively. Could be our faith would be better placed in ourselves than in "God"... Warm regards, Roger

I love this thought. It is possible to evolve into this connection with our Godly attributes and spirits, and still believe in God/Jesus. If we are children of God I believe He gives us the power through this "energy" to heal and connect with others in a way that many humans do not fully comprehend yet but some cultures have tapped into. Thinking "Celestine Prophecy".....

My prayers and thoughts have been changing after pondering over this. I have appreciated all the responses.

I had discussed this topic with a group of "Chapel Mormons" and they were unable to understand the point of my questions. They couldn't get past the LDS belief that God has a mission for them which is why He answers their prayers. They believe He allows the atrocities to happen because those millions of victims fulfilled their mission. UGGGG! So impossible to delve into deep questions with this kind of reasoning. The whole conversation I had to keep explaining what my concerns were with this belief but it fell on deaf ears. I think the majority of LDS believe this way because of the Mormon teachings that God saved the most righteous from the pre existence for our time, to be instruments in spreading the gospel. I can't see how anybody would be humble and believe in that.

It's such a relief to be here with people who get it.

“Love” is an emotion or an emotional response. We like it, but it has great potential to disillusion. The fact that you “love” it in no way validates it or gives it credibility.

God is an illusion, an invention absent genuine transparent evidence which may be examined and legitimized. Further, people have vastly different views about God from religion to religion today. Further, religious beliefs today are at great divergence with religious beliefs even 100 years ago let alone many hundreds of years and thousands of years ago.

You state:
If we are children of God I believe He gives us the power through this "energy" to heal and connect with others in a way that many humans do not fully comprehend yet but some cultures have tapped into.

The “if” assumption has in no way been established. You may “love” the idea, but it’s a romantic illusion not established by any valid, tested evidence.

More accurately, we could argue that there is “power” in information. The more informed we are, the greater capacity we have to use that information. Consider medical science as a present-day example. Or consider destructive bombs capable of annihilating hundreds of millions of people at a single use. Both make use of information not wishful thinking.

You state:
I had discussed this topic with a group of "Chapel Mormons" and they were unable to understand the point of my questions. They couldn't get past the LDS belief that God has a mission for them which is why He answers their prayers. They believe He allows the atrocities to happen because those millions of victims fulfilled their mission. UGGGG!

They were entrapped by religious doctrine/dogma. However, while you have demonstrated that you escape to some extent their entrapment, you also demonstrate entrapment of your own.

“He allows the atrocities...” is a general cop-out for genuine analysis about why events take place. There are reasons for events which can be explained in the light of comprehensive information. They are not explained in the least by religious dogma such as your “Chapel Mormons” may wish to believe. No evidence for God has been established. Religious doctrine/dogma from any religion is not, not evidence. I agree with “UGGG!” on your part. But not because of religious belief. People tend to make up what they like (love) and incorporate it into their emotionally satisfying notions. However, such mental gymnastics in no way legitimize their notions.

You state:
So impossible to delve into deep questions with this kind of reasoning. The whole conversation I had to keep explaining what my concerns were with this belief but it fell on deaf ears.

Yes, it’s virtually “to delve into deep questions” of any kind when people bring bias rooted in ignorant superstition to the questions. What then is needed is a rejection of beliefs that lack clear, transparent, tested analysis for all to observe with clear-minded objectivity. I can understand that your “concerns” “fell on deaf ears.”

But that is historically the case when science confronts and contradicts religious doctrine/dogma/myth. It takes a long time for reason to triumph over superstition -- generations. Enlightened perspectives nearly always cost people comfortable beliefs which have emotional appeal.

You state:
I think the majority of LDS believe this way because of the Mormon teachings that God saved the most righteous from the pre existence for our time, to be instruments in spreading the gospel. I can't see how anybody would be humble and believe in that.

Religion has never been about humility regardless of what lip-service that is paid to that false front. Religion (superstition) is about being right and indoctrinating all who can be into whatever a given religion’s notion of right happens to be. Historically, religion takes power driven by wealth, politics, and people who dominate and control the weaker. It is never open to objective analysis, independent scrutiny, and nonpartisan surveillance. Religion/superstition is not democratic nor is it self-correcting.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, "AMEN!" Pasted below is from Spong's latest News Letter... Would make good discussion material in any Sunday School class:

One of the things we need to embrace in order to understand the conflicts being waged in most of the main line churches today is that throughout most of human history, the average man or woman could neither read nor write. That is why the Church used art forms, like the Stations of the Cross, or music, like the various spirituals developed in the black church telling a story in song, to inform the people about the nature of the Christian faith. This fact also meant that when a challenge to perceived truth occurred, very few people ever heard about it or were disturbed by it. Therefore in the 16th century when a revolutionary view of the universe was developed by Copernicus, suggesting that the planet earth was not the center of creation, it was not a great problem for the Church since few people ever heard about it. A century later, however, when Galileo, who was a far more public figure, embraced the thought of Copernicus and began to discuss and write about his thinking publicly, he paid for his notoriety in a trial, which forced him to end his life as a heretic under house arrest. Why was this cosmological insight so upsetting? The answer to that was quite simple. If heaven is not just above the sky, then much of the content of the Bible, from the Tower of Babel to the story of Jesus' ascension becomes nonsensical. With the rise of an educated class in the great universities of Europe the Church's ability to control truth and to define the limits of the debate began to fade. In the 17th century Isaac Newton brought natural law into western consciousness and consequently contributed to the shrinking of the realms in which both miracle and magic were believed to occur. Charles Darwin, once he made his trip to the Galapagos Islands in the 19th century, proceeded to challenge the Church's understanding of human origins and correspondingly the accuracy of the creation story from the Book of Genesis. If human beings were not fallen from a pristine position of having been fashioned in God's image, then the divine rescue that Jesus was said to have effected with his redemptive act of suffering and dying on the cross was a solution to an incorrect diagnosis. In the early years of the 20th century when Sigmund Freud began to analyze the infantile elements in Christianity, the view of God as a heavenly parent figure was destabilized and much that was once called holy now appeared to be only neurotic. As a result organized religion in the western world went into a tailspin. Later in the middle years of that same 20th century, Albert Einstein confronted the world with the idea that both time and space were relative categories, and that since all people live inside time and space, every human articulation of truth was itself relative and not absolute. This meant that Christianity's absolutist claims for infallible popes and inerrant Bibles could no longer be seriously entertained.

Thoughts?? Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

JAK, "AMEN!" Pasted below is from Spong's latest News Letter... Would make good discussion material in any Sunday School class:

One of the things we need to embrace in order to understand the conflicts being waged in most of the main line churches today is that throughout most of human history, the average man or woman could neither read nor write. That is why the Church used art forms, like the Stations of the Cross, or music, like the various spirituals developed in the black church telling a story in song, to inform the people about the nature of the Christian faith. This fact also meant that when a challenge to perceived truth occurred, very few people ever heard about it or were disturbed by it. Therefore in the 16th century when a revolutionary view of the universe was developed by Copernicus, suggesting that the planet earth was not the center of creation, it was not a great problem for the Church since few people ever heard about it. A century later, however, when Galileo, who was a far more public figure, embraced the thought of Copernicus and began to discuss and write about his thinking publicly, he paid for his notoriety in a trial, which forced him to end his life as a heretic under house arrest. Why was this cosmological insight so upsetting? The answer to that was quite simple. If heaven is not just above the sky, then much of the content of the Bible, from the Tower of Babel to the story of Jesus' ascension becomes nonsensical. With the rise of an educated class in the great universities of Europe the Church's ability to control truth and to define the limits of the debate began to fade. In the 17th century Isaac Newton brought natural law into western consciousness and consequently contributed to the shrinking of the realms in which both miracle and magic were believed to occur. Charles Darwin, once he made his trip to the Galapagos Islands in the 19th century, proceeded to challenge the Church's understanding of human origins and correspondingly the accuracy of the creation story from the Book of Genesis. If human beings were not fallen from a pristine position of having been fashioned in God's image, then the divine rescue that Jesus was said to have effected with his redemptive act of suffering and dying on the cross was a solution to an incorrect diagnosis. In the early years of the 20th century when Sigmund Freud began to analyze the infantile elements in Christianity, the view of God as a heavenly parent figure was destabilized and much that was once called holy now appeared to be only neurotic. As a result organized religion in the western world went into a tailspin. Later in the middle years of that same 20th century, Albert Einstein confronted the world with the idea that both time and space were relative categories, and that since all people live inside time and space, every human articulation of truth was itself relative and not absolute. This meant that Christianity's absolutist claims for infallible popes and inerrant Bibles could no longer be seriously entertained.

Thoughts?? Warm regards, Roger

Hi Roger,

Some excellent ideas here not well separated by paragraphs to facilitate organized flow. But, perhaps they were originally and in the copy, all spaces were eliminated.

In Christian groups, such analysis and detailed considerations are rarely if ever articulated.

Doctrine is generally stated with one assertion piled upon another -- upon another, etc. Rarely, does any Christian group actually apply the very elementary rational thinking in the quote you posted.

Such Christian groups generally don’t even attempt to demonstrate logical analysis beyond singular because clauses linked to one claim at a time. Your quote illustrates well the absurdity of some Christian doctrines on the simple face of them.

If you have not tried this in a real group, try asking probing questions about obvious inconsistencies and out-right contradictions. It’s a risky thing to do if you have friends in the group. It’s far easier on a forum such as this. BUT, if you do it in real life, people soon become angry and express hostility personally toward someone who asks probing questions. Or, they become confrontational and begin asking: Well, you believe so-in-so, don’t you?

If you answer, “no,” you are likely to be charged with: Well, you aren’t a good Christian! -- or something worse.

Here, of course, one can remain an intellect in word alone on the screen. It’s only the thought, the thinking, the insightful questions, and rational response which are demonstrated or fail to be demonstrated.

Thanks for posting the quote.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, The above quote is John Shelby Spong's. His newest book is, Jesus For The Nonreligious. His prior, Sins Of Scripture that i've read, is excellent, as i expect his newest to be. Spong is very much an envelope-pusher...

You, or any open minded inquisitives, would, i think, find his web site very interesting: Johnshelbyspong.com

You are correct, when on the less travelled road, one often finds past associations become defunct as they pass beyond the familiar. However, a 'traveller', as opposed to a 'tourist', is not too-long dismayed. In their new 'environment' they encounter new like-minds and renewed exilerations... At least this is how i have experienced my 'journey'. And, in fact many old-friends remain loyal while often expressing their regret of not being able to move 'forward' for exactly the reasons you mention. Sort of the bell-curve thing... The thin leading edge, the bulky middle, and the thin trailing edge...

This experience encourages me. Is it trite to say, "truth will prevail"? Not from my perspective of watching that "prevail" over my 70+ years. Knowing full well, NEVER without "travail"!

Nice to encounter a fellow-traveller! Pasted below are the next 'two paragraphs' :-) from Spong's news letter:

As each of these now largely undisputed insights began to enter, first the universities and, in time, the lowest levels of the public schools, their unavoidable truth was seen to challenge the presuppositions of the Christian faith and to set up a mighty struggle between religion and contemporary knowledge. We are still aware of some of the flash points of that struggle in the United States. There was the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925 when a young biology teacher named John Scopes was put on trial for violating a state statute forbidding the teaching of "godless evolution" to Tennessee children, since it was deemed to be contrary to "The Word of God." The trial attracted national attention since it brought into that small town courtroom two very well known public figures: Williams Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic Party nominee for President (1896, 1900 and 1908) to defend the literal Bible and renowned trial lawyer and atheist, Clarence Darrow, to defend the young school teacher. Such semi-religious propositions as "creation science" and "intelligent design" are today the lingering residue of that battle. The current searing conflicts inside Christianity over the place of the Bible in determining what is to be the role and status of women and the place of homosexuals in both church and society are nothing more than one final gasp of this age old conflict. Not to see this is simply to be blind to history.

There is a second source of knowledge that also feeds this current dispute. This one arises from within specifically Christian circles and reflects the last 200 years of critical biblical scholarship. In the 18th century Christian leaders began to probe the Bible with the new tools of scholarship that were available to them. In the process most of the old assumptions about the Bible were quickly obliterated. Beginning in Germany, the idea that God dictated the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) was brought into question and quickly dismissed. A group of scholars in what came to be known as the Graf-Welhausen School identified a minimum of four distinct sources underlying the Torah. None of these sources were as old as Moses, who died around 1250 B.C.E. and whose life is shrouded in mystery. The earliest source of the Torah was written some 300 years after the death of Moses. It reflects the values of what came to be called the land of Judah with its holy city of Jerusalem, its temple and temple priesthood and the established monarchy of the descendants of King David, whose memory was regarded as the golden age of the Jews. The second source was written in the Northern Kingdom called Israel after a successful revolution against Judah led by a military captain named Jeroboam. This version extolled the revolution, justified rebelling against those kings who violated the people's trust, and sought to build up Northern shrines at Bethel and Beersheba to compete with Jerusalem. It also treated Joseph, the presumed ancestor of the people of the Northern Kingdom, as Jacob's favorite son, the child by his favorite wife and made his half-brother Judah, the patriarch of the South, into a villain. When the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 721 B.C.E. refugees bearing their version of the sacred story escaped the carnage in Samaria and came to Jerusalem. Later, scribes pasted these two sacred stories together, sometimes rather crudely, allowing contradictions to stand side by side as the sacred Torah began to come into view.

I hope you find this interesting too. There is a lecture series i started listening to yesterday, on the "Beyond Belief" site, i think that's correct?? I will confirm that and post the address for all... Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

JAK, The above quote is John Shelby Spong's. His newest book is, Jesus For The Nonreligious. His prior, Sins Of Scripture that i've read, is excellent, as i expect his newest to be. Spong is very much an envelope-pusher...

You, or any open minded inquisitives, would, i think, find his web site very interesting: Johnshelbyspong.com

You are correct, when on the less travelled road, one often finds past associations become defunct as they pass beyond the familiar. However, a 'traveller', as opposed to a 'tourist', is not too-long dismayed. In their new 'environment' they encounter new like-minds and renewed exilerations... At least this is how i have experienced my 'journey'. And, in fact many old-friends remain loyal while often expressing their regret of not being able to move 'forward' for exactly the reasons you mention. Sort of the bell-curve thing... The thin leading edge, the bulky middle, and the thin trailing edge...

This experience encourages me. Is it trite to say, "truth will prevail"? Not from my perspective of watching that "prevail" over my 70+ years. Knowing full well, NEVER without "travail"!

Nice to encounter a fellow-traveller! Pasted below are the next 'two paragraphs' :-) from Spong's news letter:

As each of these now largely undisputed insights began to enter, first the universities and, in time, the lowest levels of the public schools, their unavoidable truth was seen to challenge the presuppositions of the Christian faith and to set up a mighty struggle between religion and contemporary knowledge. We are still aware of some of the flash points of that struggle in the United States. There was the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925 when a young biology teacher named John Scopes was put on trial for violating a state statute forbidding the teaching of "godless evolution" to Tennessee children, since it was deemed to be contrary to "The Word of God." The trial attracted national attention since it brought into that small town courtroom two very well known public figures: Williams Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic Party nominee for President (1896, 1900 and 1908) to defend the literal Bible and renowned trial lawyer and atheist, Clarence Darrow, to defend the young school teacher. Such semi-religious propositions as "creation science" and "intelligent design" are today the lingering residue of that battle. The current searing conflicts inside Christianity over the place of the Bible in determining what is to be the role and status of women and the place of homosexuals in both church and society are nothing more than one final gasp of this age old conflict. Not to see this is simply to be blind to history.

There is a second source of knowledge that also feeds this current dispute. This one arises from within specifically Christian circles and reflects the last 200 years of critical biblical scholarship. In the 18th century Christian leaders began to probe the Bible with the new tools of scholarship that were available to them. In the process most of the old assumptions about the Bible were quickly obliterated. Beginning in Germany, the idea that God dictated the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) was brought into question and quickly dismissed. A group of scholars in what came to be known as the Graf-Welhausen School identified a minimum of four distinct sources underlying the Torah. None of these sources were as old as Moses, who died around 1250 B.C.E. and whose life is shrouded in mystery. The earliest source of the Torah was written some 300 years after the death of Moses. It reflects the values of what came to be called the land of Judah with its holy city of Jerusalem, its temple and temple priesthood and the established monarchy of the descendants of King David, whose memory was regarded as the golden age of the Jews. The second source was written in the Northern Kingdom called Israel after a successful revolution against Judah led by a military captain named Jeroboam. This version extolled the revolution, justified rebelling against those kings who violated the people's trust, and sought to build up Northern shrines at Bethel and Beersheba to compete with Jerusalem. It also treated Joseph, the presumed ancestor of the people of the Northern Kingdom, as Jacob's favorite son, the child by his favorite wife and made his half-brother Judah, the patriarch of the South, into a villain. When the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 721 B.C.E. refugees bearing their version of the sacred story escaped the carnage in Samaria and came to Jerusalem. Later, scribes pasted these two sacred stories together, sometimes rather crudely, allowing contradictions to stand side by side as the sacred Torah began to come into view.

I hope you find this interesting too. There is a lecture series i started listening to yesterday, on the "Beyond Belief" site, i think that's correct?? I will confirm that and post the address for all... Warm regards, Roger

Very interesting, Roger!

I’ll try to look at the website you gave. In the quote, the author gives some specifics which contribute positively to his writing.

JAK