what's the purpose of praying?

[SlitheryDee]

His dilemma was that his friend asked for prayer and he doesn't believe in prayer. He wants to help his friend and he doesn't know how to answer her request while preserving what he holds as true in his mind while not offending her because of what she holds true in her mind.

How is that not a dilemma?

It wouldn't be a dilemma for me because I have no problem lying to them about it. According to what I believe, the only help she'll get out of it is knowing I prayed for her. There's no way for her to verify that I did it, so I can give her 100% of the benefits of prayer and not have to pray by simply telling her I did/will pray for her whether I do it or not.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

You either have faith or you don't. No one can convince someone else otherwise. We can share examples of having had miraculous things happen in front of us. Everyone here has seen something miraculous that can't be explained away. God has made Himself known to everyone. Whether you want to heed the call or not is up to you. There is free will after all.

 

[soulcougher73]

The god you have constructed has these attributes:
1) Omnipotent and omniscient
2) A creator god
3) Unchanging

This god created a world where cruelty and suffering would exist. This god knew this would be the case when it acted to create this world. From small personal slights to genocidal cruelty, it was all baked in the cake by the god you've created. Therefore, that god is 100% responsible for the outcome of its action. In a world created by an omnipotent/omniscient god, there is no free will as every aspect of the world was conceived and known to the creator god.

Again, the more interesting question, "why would someone choose to create a god like this?" Passing the buck?

Yeah i think Christianity would be more plausible had they not added 'Omniscient' to their god. It really painted a lot of things into a hard corner to talk your way out of. Omnipotent is fine as it makes sense as a God i suppose. Either way its all silly to believe

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The god you have constructed has these attributes:
1) Omnipotent and omniscient
2) A creator god
3) Unchanging

This god created a world where cruelty and suffering would exist. This god knew this would be the case when it acted to create this world. From small personal slights to genocidal cruelty, it was all baked in the cake by the god you've created. Therefore, that god is 100% responsible for the outcome of its action. In a world created by an omnipotent/omniscient god, there is no free will as every aspect of the world was conceived and known to the creator god.

Again, the more interesting question, "why would someone choose to create a god like this?" Passing the buck?

Thee first two are correct. The unchanging part is not, Jesus being the primary example. I'll repeat it again, knowledge does not equate to responsibility. As the creator, God is responsible for the act of creation not, what we've done with it. Further, how is allowing pain and suffering/evil to exist mean God doesn't exist or, that prayer does no good?

 

[Ruptga]

Yeah that's cool and all but let's get back to where you dodged an actual argument by replying with dogma.

No one, God included, is responsible for what they didn't do. You might not like the result but, it doesn't carry the onus of responsibility. Responsibility doesn't come from knowledge, it comes from accepting it. God gave us free will in this existence which includes the ability to destroy our own lives and those of others. Further you extend the limitations of human existence to God and try to judge him by those standards. You seem to be angry at God rather than yourself, a very human reaction.

See, this is how you argue things in sunday school, you just assert something trite regardless of context or arguments to the contrary and that's that, but that will never convince an adult mind that doesn't "want to believe". Go on though, tell us how it's our fault that we can't accept the truth because we don't want to, or that the problem lies with us because u mad, bro. You're wasting your time, but at least I find your fail amusing so it's not a total loss.

 

[IronWing]

Thee first two are correct. The unchanging part is not, Jesus being the primary example.

If your god changed, was it perfect before the change or after the change? What was less than perfect about your god in either state?

I'll repeat it again, knowledge does not equate to responsibility. As the creator, God is responsible for the act of creation not, what we've done with it.

The god, in full knowledge of the result of its action, chose to create a world containing cruelty and suffering. It didn't have to do that. It is 100% responsible for its conduct. In a world created by an omnipotent/omniscient god, we can only read the script.

Further, how is allowing pain and suffering/evil to exist mean God doesn't exist...?

You won't find that assertion in my posts.

... that prayer does no good?

In a world created by an omnipotent/omniscient god, prayer would be a meaningless reading of the script laid down by the creator god. To claim free will would be to deny the nature of the god you have constructed.

 

[JM Aggie08]

The pissing into the wind continues.

 

[JD50]

Thee first two are correct. The unchanging part is not, Jesus being the primary example. I'll repeat it again, knowledge does not equate to responsibility. As the creator, God is responsible for the act of creation not, what we've done with it. Further, how is allowing pain and suffering/evil to exist mean God doesn't exist or, that prayer does no good?

Ironwing covered the rest but if a God is omniscient then everything, by definition, is unchanging. If he already knows the outcome then it cannot change and we have no free will, otherwise he's not omniscient.

And before you say "he knows every possible outcome", well that's not omniscient.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Thee first two are correct. The unchanging part is not, Jesus being the primary example. I'll repeat it again, knowledge does not equate to responsibility. As the creator, God is responsible for the act of creation not, what we've done with it.

Both he and I have explained why you are wrong here, and you're simply gainsaying. Is that all you can muster?

Further, how is allowing pain and suffering/evil to exist mean God doesn't exist or, that prayer does no good?

It means that an omnipotent God that does not desire suffering/evil can't exist. An omnipotent being gets exactly what it wants, always.

 

[MtnMan]

It's to give hope you jackass. She's losing her dad. I fucking swear empathy is a lost emotion.

Her dad is dying (it will happen to every single one of us), and that is the reality. Accepting the reality is a lost reality.

 

[futurefields]

OP, you may be overthinking this one.

When a person's death is unavoidable (as it always ultimately is), you can help relatives/friends begin to cope with their upcoming loss by accommodating their wishes. If mobilizing people to "pray" for their father helps them feel better during this tough time, then perhaps that's reason enough to "go through the motions" even if you (and I) suspect that it will not change the outcome.

Same idea with funerals -- it's all about what helps the relatives/friends to accept their loss; the guest of honor is beyond caring.

Overthinking it and also a terrible friend.

His friends dad is dying of cancer and he made this thread.

I wonder if he would dare show his "friend" this thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And before you say "he knows every possible outcome", well that's not omniscient.

It can be omniscience in a many-worlds universe. It would create a bunch of other soteriological problems for Christians, however.

 

[JM Aggie08]

Your mom's omniscient!

 

[GagHalfrunt]

We can share examples of having had miraculous things happen in front of us. Everyone here has seen something miraculous that can't be explained away.

Bullshit. I've never seen anything that can't be explained plausibly and rationally without resorting to "Poof!! A magical invisible man in the sky did it!" The invisible man is a crutch used by people too lazy or too stupid to try to figure out what REALLY happened.

 

[Ruptga]

Bullshit. I've never seen anything that can't be explained plausibly and rationally without resorting to "Poof!! A magical invisible man in the sky did it!" The invisible man is a crutch used by people too lazy or too stupid to try to figure out what REALLY happened.

Don't forget the people that just aren't comfortable with the answers they're coming up with, or the lack thereof. You don't need to be an idiot to be a theist or spiritualist, you just need to not be particularly rational. As a human, I can understand irrationality.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Don't forget the people that just aren't comfortable with the answers they're coming up with, or the lack thereof. You don't need to be an idiot to be a theist or spiritualist, you just need to not be particularly rational. As a human, I can understand irrationality.

No, the god comes first. That's a necessity. It's the belief in the invisible man in the sky that makes people uncomfortable with the real answers. God was invented by people who didn't have any answers. They were stupid and afraid and they made up the invisible man to explain the things they didn't understand.

You don't need to be an idiot to believe in religion at some point in your life, that's indoctrinated into people at an early age. Children and the uneducated don't know better and don't have access to the truths about the fairy tales. Your parents say there's an invisible man in the sky then you're going to believe there's an invisible man in the sky. The idiot part is continuing to believe in the fairy tales after they're proven to be fairy tales. What we have is billions of people sticking their fingers in their ears screaming "LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when faced with those uncomfortable answers. That is most definitely idiotic.

 

[Jeff7]

Yeah i think Christianity would be more plausible had they not added 'Omniscient' to their god. It really painted a lot of things into a hard corner to talk your way out of. Omnipotent is fine as it makes sense as a God i suppose. Either way its all silly to believe

Adding "infinite" in any sense to something is a quick way of creating plot holes if it's not used carefully, whether it's being applied to mathematics or deities.

Infinitely extraordinary claims require infinitely extraordinary evidence.

Even if evidence is found that this spacetime bubble of a Universe was made by some other entity, is that entity a god? No. No moreso than we are gods to yeast in a loaf of bread, or the untold trillions used every second in commercial breadmaking.

You either have faith or you don't. No one can convince someone else otherwise. We can share examples of having had miraculous things happen in front of us. Everyone here has seen something miraculous that can't be explained away. God has made Himself known to everyone. Whether you want to heed the call or not is up to you. There is free will after all.

I suppose not.

I regard blind faith as a potentially dangerous systemic problem with the human brain. Believing something for which there is no solid evidence? Why and how is that possibly construed as a positive thing? Insane people do that. Firmly believing things for which there is no evidence is one way of getting yourself labeled as being insane in the first place.


Evidence-based faith? Love is often used as an example of faith. I suppose it is? Maybe? I can't see the neurons interacting inside someone else's brain, so it's difficult to really drill down and prove that it's there.
But there's a lot of observable evidence of love.

Hell, I guess I have faith that electrons exist. I've never personally seen one. I'm told that the collective effect of many of them moving and sloshing around a conductor is what allows things like computers and motors to work, but it could be something else. It might be trapped souls of billions of dead humans being squeezed along a tortuous journey, coerced by "magnetism" in generators, and the whole "tiny particle/wave things called electrons" is just a ruse to keep us all complacent about it.
But I'm going to go with electrons as the best explanation.

 

[WelshBloke]

That's why I sacrifice a sheep when I really need something done. It always works, and the cost of sheep prohibits overuse. God doesn't appreciate stolen sheep.

Plus you get the base for a fucking awesome curry as well!

 

[IronWing]

Plus you get the base for a fucking!

Before or after you slaughter it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hell, I guess I have faith that electrons exist. I've never personally seen one.

It is a curiously arbitrary set of linguistic conventions that decide which things we've "seen" and which things we've not. When the photons bouncing off a macro object hit your retinas, we agree you've "seen" it, but if we bounce a single photon off an electron and into a detector, and then the photons from the detector's output hit your retinas, why haven't you seen the electron?

All observations are indirect, but it is only a matter of degree by which they differ. Of course, the chains of interacting events which connect the phenomena to the observers are assumed to be absent of the capricious and inter-meddling effects of magical beings... except when convenient for religious people.

 

[Ruptga]

No, the god comes first. That's a necessity. It's the belief in the invisible man in the sky that makes people uncomfortable with the real answers.

I still disagree, with this part anyway. Coming from that background is not going to help, but it's perfectly natural to be shocked by the realization that there is no meaning in anything except what we make for ourselves. Later it's usually exciting because of the endless possibilities, but at first it's terrifying for exactly the same reason. Once you make that realization you usually have to re-evaluate everything, and until you figure out who you are and what you really care about it can be a bumpy ride.

There are plenty of people out there that know the truth (about anything, not just stuff on this topic) but they refuse to acknowledge it even to themselves because they just can't deal with it emotionally. As someone that has been there and moved on I do look down on their cowardice - to an extent, and no more than I look down on the dumbass I was for so long. I also sympathize, and am willing to be patient and civil.

 

[Naer]

Gaming is basically technological praying

 

[WelshBloke]

Before or after you slaughter it?

Dont play with your food.

 

[Jeff7]

It is a curiously arbitrary set of linguistic conventions that decide which things we've "seen" and which things we've not. When the photons bouncing off a macro object hit your retinas, we agree you've "seen" it, but if we bounce a single photon off an electron and into a detector, and then the photons from the detector's output hit your retinas, why haven't you seen the electron?

All observations are indirect, but it is only a matter of degree by which they differ. Of course, the chains of interacting events which connect the phenomena to the observers are assumed to be absent of the capricious and inter-meddling effects of magical beings... except when convenient for religious people.

I just had some flashbacks to two philosophy courses I took back in college. Fun stuff.

 

[pete6032]

Firmly believing things for which there is no evidence is one way of getting yourself labeled as being insane in the first place.

But we do have evidence. A written account, and that's what makes Christianity so compelling.