Prayer?

[God ~blogs/forums admin ~]

What's your intellectual opinion on prayer?
Good parts, bad parts.

Why are said parts good/bad.

Y'all get the gist, aye?

My recent post on it, just to give you a gist of where I stand on t...

[Fake Crowley]

1. First off, I meant, "Give me these so called accounts," unless you meant the Bible, in which case I meant, "Prove to me that this account of history is different than every other contradictory one." Second, I don't trust history. Maybe the basics of it and the really recent stuff, but I take most of it with a grain of salt. History is written by the victor, and when it's not remembered it's usually made up. You've talked about how various accounts of history are incorrect--the persecution of various scientists by Christians, the true nature of the crusades, et cetera (I'm actually partially inclined to agree with you on the Crusades thing. As for the former example, more research is required before I choose one interpretation over another.) And I've noticed a few discrepancies in history myself, unrelated to religion. Given that some people today actually believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, for instance, it seems plausible that people can't be trusted to remember history accurately.

 

2. So is sin just some grime that is attached to our soul, unrelated to our personality? In other words, is it something that we accumulate through life that isn't neccesarily flaws in our soul, but rather something that latches onto said soul as we commit sins? I'm not debating at this point, it just seems like an interesting concept.

 

However...I don't, "Refuse," to be made pure, the same as everyone else. If I have something on my soul that needs to scrub away, then God can go ahead. So I'm not refusing. If it's an option, I'll take it. So if I'm not refusing, then what am I doing? More importantly, there's no way for us to pay the debt on our own? I don't like relying on other people, especially if they suffer as a result of it.

 

3. Sure, I'm grateful to him if he did such a thing. Still, I'm going to have to say, "No, thank you." I'll take responsibility for my own actions, and try to purify myself the old-fashioned way. I believe in getting what's coming to me, and accept the price I have to pay.

 

4. Reasonable, I suppose.

 

5. Eh. That's kind of selfish of him, you know. He wants love, so people go to hell? That's not self sacrifice, and that's not a God I want to believe in.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

First off, I meant, "Give me these so called accounts," unless you meant the Bible, in which case I meant, "Prove to me that this account of history is different than every other contradictory one."

The accounts of the Bible are not contradictory. People think they are, and have made mistakes to that effect, but they arn't. If you want to discuss specific examples, I've made other threads about that

History is written by the victor, and when it's not remembered it's usually made up.

See this is where you're using history in a different way to how I'm using it. What you are talking about is the perception of history. The narratives that people create, based on their worldviews. However, if you go down to the basics, the accounts, the specific sources, then that's different. In those cases, they definitely wern't written by the winners in the case of the church. The gospel authors were all hunted down and killed for their part in these things. They were substantially the losers in that sense.

You've talked about how various accounts of history are incorrect--the persecution of various scientists by Christians, the true nature of the crusades, et cetera (I'm actually partially inclined to agree with you on the Crusades thing. As for the former example, more research is required before I choose one interpretation over another.) And I've noticed a few discrepancies in history myself, unrelated to religion. Given that some people today actually believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, for instance, it seems plausible that people can't be trusted to remember history accurately.

Again, these things are peoples perceptions of history, not the history itself. History itself is the sources.

So is sin just some grime that is attached to our soul, unrelated to our personality? In other words, is it something that we accumulate through life that isn't neccesarily flaws in our soul, but rather something that latches onto said soul as we commit sins?I'm not debating at this point, it just seems like an interesting concept.

There are two aspects to sin. There is sin the condition, IE the world in which we live is a tainted and sinful one, and we come into this world seperated from God as a result. Then there is sin the action, IE the things we do. It is these that we ultimately need cleanisng of, because it is these that, left to themselves, will send us to hell.

However...I don't, "Refuse," to be made pure, the same as everyone else. If I have something on my soul that needs to scrub away, then God can go ahead. So I'm not refusing. If it's an option, I'll take it. So if I'm not refusing, then what am I doing?

If you do not take Jesus's offer, then you are refusing. There is no way to be made without sin other than through what Jesus is offering us. To accept we need to do three things

1. Be sorry for our sins

2. Thank Jesus for making it possible for us to be forgiven

3. Live our lives without sin as best we can

This is the only option, if you want to be rid of sin.

More importantly, there's no way for us to pay the debt on our own? I don't like relying on other people, especially if they suffer as a result of it.

This is a common problem people have when responding to the gospel, and it is where we see modern culture being influenced by things not of God that cause people to be lead away. Our culture praises independence, praises going it alone, doing things off our own backs...but the truth is that its impossible to do that with sin. We don't have the power to do that by ourselves. Satan knows that, so he tries to fill our culture with messages of independence etc, and then that means that when people are presented with the gospel, they don't like it.

Sure, I'm grateful to him if he did such a thing. Still, I'm going to have to say, "No, thank you." I'll take responsibility for my own actions, and try to purify myself the old-fashioned way. I believe in getting what's coming to me, and accept the price I have to pay.

The thing is, there is no way for you to pay the price, except eternity in hell. No one has the power to make themselves sinless. It can't be done. It's like I've said before, the fact that someone may have lead a blameless life up to the point of shoplifting etc doesn't then mean that the court will simply let them off. They will be punished. The same is true of hell. Not all of hell is at the same level, as Jesus pointed out himself, but that doesn't mean that anyone can escape without Jesus. This is why for so many Christians, this is so urgent.

Eh. That's kind of selfish of him, you know. He wants love, so people go to hell? That's not self sacrifice, and that's not a God I want to believe in.

No, you misunderstand, probably because I didn't explain it very clearly.

He wants people to love him. He doesn't need love. He's not a needy God, needing people to love him. But he wants a real relationship with us.

Put it this way, imagine someone doing good all their life, not because they chose to, but because they had no choice. They were effectively an automomaton, with no power of will of their own, only able to do good things. Now how does that compare to someone who did good things because they thought it was good. The latter, seems to me, and I'm sure to you, much better. The same is true of God. God doesn't want us to come to him because we have no choice. He wants us to come because we want to. 

[Paul Barton]

By studying something, anything, and expecting to understand it, you must therefore be suggesting that you are necessarily greater than it

I don't think so. Scientists who study the universe don't think they are "greater" than the universe. Not by a long shot. I'd even suggest that monkeys study us all of the time: "when that person comes in, he usually has food." Heck, even my dog knows that when my mom picks up the dog leash, it means it's time for a walk. My dog understands certain aspects of my mom, and makes predictions. Absolutely no reason we can't do that with respect to god.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I don't think so. Scientists who study the universe don't think they are "greater" than the universe. Not by a long shot.

They do. They do think they are more intelligent than the universe. The universe is, as they would say, just a series of physical phenomenon interacting. By being able to understand it, they must be at least as, if not more, complex than it. If they are not as complex of it.

Heck, even my dog knows that when my mom picks up the dog leash, it means it's time for a walk. My dog understands certain aspects of my mom, and makes predictions. Absolutely no reason we can't do that with respect to god.

I'd agree with that. We can understand aspects and parts of God. But we cannot claim to understand him completely. To expect that studying prayer will reveal some kind of pattern like that won't work.

[Fake Crowley]

All humans are more intelligent than the universe, assuming that the theory of it being a huge brain is as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

It's like being more intelligent than a rock. It's kind of a given.

 

Greater, though...to the contrary, most atheist-scientists merely acknowledge their own insignificance, and the insignificance of everything else, too. They're as great as it, meaning that they both have no greatness at all. Others think that intelligent life is significant, I'll grant you, but that's when compared to the absence of intelligence, not existence at all. Atheist-scientists believe that they have no purpose, just like everything else. That they aren't here for a reason.

[patch]

Prayer?

See: Placebo.

That isn't a knock. Not exactly.

Even though they have no biological affect on a person's ailment, placebos can be pretty powerful things to improve the afflicted individual's disposition. Mind over matter, sorta. Sound like new age hogwash but it's true, your perception of pain influences the pain experienced. A good attitude or relief from anxiety can improve one's experience and start an upward spiral of positive affects due to a decrease in stress. However...it doesn't cure anything.

We mustn't over look the power of perception, however, we should also not give it more credit than is apparent. A good attitude is cannot replace medical treatment but it can make the process easier and more comfortable.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone....

Now, I haven't come across any study connecting placebo to prayer. I am speculating, finding co-relations.

Studies have been done to compare the effects of prayer on the progress of patients recovering from surgery. Patients told that a church would be praying for them during their recovery showed higher stress levels and more difficulty during recovery. It is suspected that they suffered performance anxiety. Prayer, in this matter, had no positive effect on the recovery of any of the patients.

http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articles/060331Reuters.pdf

Still, it cannot be ignored that "spiritual" people, not simply religion or only christians, have lower stress levels. Belief in a higher power, much like a placebo (even if you know it is fake), can reduce anxiety, improve one's attitude and make ailments more tolerable. So I am speculating, if prayer improves the disposition of an individual, it indeed has some impressive power, even if spirits and magic have nothing to do with it.

[Ash Phillips]

Interesting side note: the placebo effect can sometimes work, even  if you know it's a placebo.

[patch]

Yep.

Placebo treatment can significantly influence subjective symptoms. However, it is widely believed that
response to placebo requires concealment or deception. We tested whether open-label placebo
(non-deceptive and non-concealed administration) is superior to a no-treatment control with matched
patient-provider interactions in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Harvard has a whole program dedicated to placebo studies. Kinda mind-bending.

Even descriptive words used in association with a method or product can influence the perceived effect it has on an individual. A powerful effect for such a small influence. This also raises a lot of questions about the prescribing of placebos and real medication....but that seems another debate altogether.