*puts on cynical atheist hat*
Because the act of prayer is a social exercise that reinforces the idea of an unquestionable authority, perpetuating the communal attitude of conformity to those moral values that aggregate around this attitude over time as well as belief in synthetic claims that naturally support it.
Perhaps not the answer you were looking for though?
*puts on cynical atheist hat*
Because the act of prayer is a social exercise that reinforces the idea of an unquestionable authority, perpetuating the communal attitude of conformity to those moral values that aggregate around this attitude over time as well as belief in synthetic claims that naturally support it.
Perhaps not the answer you were looking for though?
This is a very interesting question. I asked a handful of people of different faiths about this and thought for a while about it myself. Here's a few different perspectives:
Conservative Jewish:
The purpose of prayer is for our own sake. The act of praying is an act of externalizing our own desires and hopes in the form of words. We do not need to inform God, or make requests/demands; that is not the nature of our relationship with God. Instead, we give thanks to God and acknowledge the role that he plays. God is the friend that is there for everyone to talk with about their problems. Praying brings the words into your consciousness, making you think about them in a more concrete manner. It is a reminder to yourself of what is important to you, and what your wants and needs are. In a sense, praying is like writing one's goals down. It allows you to look more critically and more seriously at these thoughts. After all, God knows what you will say, but you don't necessarily know what you want to say or will say.
On a side note, in the case of Judaism, prayer has also replaced animal sacrifice since older times. In services, this is sometimes specifically mentioned; the sacrifice is one of time rather than one of a life.
Also, when specifically praying with other people, a sense of community forms. There are others with similar desires and wishes, and this leads to solidarity, especially at times of tragedy.
Atheist:
Free will is still present despite God's omniscience. Prayer is a dialogue rather than a monologue; the paradigm of a conversation is present in prayer.
C.S. Lewis:
In this book the reader has heard of two classes of events and two only—miracles and natural events. The former are not interlocked with the history of Nature in the backward direction—i.e. in the time before their occurrence. The latter are. Many pious people, however, speak of certain events as being ‘providential’ or ‘special providences’ without meaning that they are miraculous. This generally implies a belief that, quite apart from miracles, some events are providential in a sense in which some others are not. Thus some people thought that the weather which enabled us to bring off so much of our army at Dunkirk was ‘providential’ in some way in which weather as a whole is not providential. The Christian doctrine that some events, though not miracles, are yet answers to prayer, would seem at first to imply this. I find it very difficult to conceive an intermediate class of events which are neither miraculous nor merely ‘ordinary’. Either the weather at Dunkirk was or was not that which the previous physical history of the universe, by its own character, would inevitably produce. If it was, then how is it ‘specially’ providential? If it was not, then it was a miracle. It seems to me, therefore, that we must abandon the idea that there is any special class of events (apart from miracles) which can be distinguished as ‘specially providential’. Unless we are to abandon the conception of Providence altogether, and with it the belief in efficacious prayer, it follows that all events are equally providential. If God directs the course of events at all then he directs the movement of every atom at every moment; ‘not one sparrow falls to the ground’ without that direction. The ‘naturalness’ of natural events does not consist in being somehow outside God’s providence. It consists in their being interlocked with one another inside a common space-time in accordance with the fixed pattern of the ‘laws’. In order to get any picture at all of a thing, it is sometimes necessary to begin with a false picture and then correct it. The false picture of Providence (false because it represents God and Nature as being both contained in a common Time) would be as follows. Every event in Nature results from some previous event, not from the laws of Nature. In the long run the first natural event, whatever it was, has dictated every other event. That is, when God at the moment of creation fed the first event into the framework of the ‘laws’—first set the ball rolling—He determined the whole history of Nature. Foreseeing every part of that history, He intended every part of it. If He had wished for different weather at Dunkirk He would have made the first event slightly different. The weather we actually had is therefore in the strictest sense providential; it was decreed, and decreed for a purpose, when the world was made—but no more so (though more interestingly to us) than the precise position at this moment of every atom in the ring of Saturn. It follows (still retaining our false picture) that every physical event was determined so as to serve a great number of purposes. Thus God must be supposed in predetermining the weather at Dunkirk to have taken fully into account the effect it would have not only on the destiny of two nations but (what is incomparably more important) on all the individuals involved on both sides, on all animals, vegetables and minerals within range, and finally on every atom in the universe. This may sound excessive, but in reality we are attributing to the Omniscient only an infinitely superior degree of the same kind of skill which a mere human novelist exercises daily in constructing his plot.Suppose I am writing a novel. I have the following problems on my hands: (1) Old Mr A. has got to be dead before Chapter 15. (2) And he’d better die suddenly because I have to prevent him from altering his will. (3) His daughter (my heroine) has got to be kept out of London for three chapters at least. (4) My hero has somehow got to recover the heroine’s good opinion which he lost in Chapter 7. (5) That young prig B. who has to improve before the end of the book, needs a bad moral shock to take the conceit out of him. (6) We haven’t decided on B.’s job yet; but the whole development of his character will involve giving him a job and showing him actually at work. How on earth am I to get in all these six things?…I have it. What about a railway accident? Old A. can be killed in it, and that settles him. In fact the accident can occur while he is actually going up to London to see his solicitor with the very purpose of getting his will altered. What more natural than that his daughter should run up with him? We’ll have her slightly injured in the accident: that’ll prevent her reaching London for as many chapters as we need. And the hero can be on the same train. He can behave with great coolness and heroism during the accident—probably he’ll rescue the heroine from a burning carriage. That settles my fourth point. And the young prig B.? We’ll make him the signalman whose negligence caused the accident. That gives him his moral shock and also links him up with the main plot. In fact, once we have thought of the railway accident, that single event will solve six apparently separate problems. No doubt this is in some ways an intolerably misleading image: firstly because (except as regards the prig B.) I have been thinking not of the ultimate good of my characters but of the entertainment of my readers: secondly because we are simply ignoring the effect of the railway accident on all the other passengers in that train: and finally because it is I who make B. give the wrong signal. That is, though I pretend that he has free will, he really hasn’t. In spite of these objections, however, the example may perhaps suggest how Divine ingenuity could so contrive the physical ‘plot’ of the universe as to provide a ‘providential’ answer to the needs of innumerable creatures. But some of these creatures have free will. It is at this point that we must begin to correct the admittedly false picture of Providence which we have hitherto been using. That picture, you will remember, was false because it represented God and Nature as inhabiting a common Time. But it is probable that Nature is not really in Time and almost certain that God is not. Time is probably (like perspective) the mode of our perception. There is therefore in reality no question of God’s at one point in time (the moment of creation) adapting the material history of the universe in advance to free acts which you or I are to perform at a later point in Time. To Him all the physical events and all the human acts are present in an eternal Now. The liberation of finite wills and the creation of the whole material history of the universe (related to the acts of those wills in all the necessary complexity) is to Him a single operation. In this sense God did not create the universe long ago but creates it at this minute—at every minute. Suppose I find a piece of paper on which a black wavy line is already drawn, I can now sit down and draw other lines (say in red) so shaped as to combine with the black line into a pattern. Let us now suppose that the original black line is conscious. But it is not conscious along the whole length at once—only on each point on that length in turn. Its consciousness in fact is travelling along that line from left to right retaining point A only as a memory when it reaches B and unable until it has left B to become conscious of C. Let us also give this black line free will. It chooses the direction it goes in. The particular wavy shape of it is the shape it wills to have. But whereas it is aware of its own chosen shape only moment by moment and does not know at point D which way it will decide to turn at point F, I can see its shape as a whole and all at once. At every moment it will find my red lines waiting for it and adapted to it. Of course: because I, in composing the total red-and-black design have the whole course of the black line in view and take it into account. It is a matter not of impossibility but merely of designer’s skill for me to devise red lines which at every point have a right relation not only to the black line but to one another so as to fill the whole paper with a satisfactory design. In this model the black line represents a creature with free will, the red lines represent material events, and I represent God. The model would of course be more accurate if I were making the paper as well as the pattern and if there were hundreds of millions of black lines instead of one—but for the sake of simplicity we must keep it as it is. 1 It will be seen that if the black line addressed prayers to me I might (if I chose) grant them. It prays that when it reaches point N it may find the red lines arranged around it in a certain shape. That shape may by the laws of design require to be balanced by other arrangements of red lines on quite different parts of the paper—some at the top or bottom so far away from the black line that it knows nothing about them: some so far to the left that they come before the beginning of the black line, some so far to the right that they come after its end. (The black line would call these parts of the paper, ‘The time before I was born,’ and, ‘The time after I’m dead.’) But these other parts of the pattern demanded by that red shape which Black Line wants at N, do not prevent my granting its prayer. For his whole course has been visible to me from the moment I looked at the paper and his requirements at point N are among the things I took into account in deciding the total pattern. Most of our prayers if fully analysed, ask either for a miracle or for events whose foundation will have to have been laid before I was born, indeed, laid when the universe began. But then to God (though not to me) I and the prayer I make in 1945 were just as much present at the creation of the w
orld as they are now and will be a million years hence. God’s creative act is timeless and timelessly adapted to the ‘free’ elements within it: but this timeless adaptation meets our consciousness as a sequence and prayer and answer. Two corollaries follow: 1. People often ask whether a given event (not a miracle) was really an answer to prayer or not. I think that if they analyse their thought they will find they are asking, ‘Did God bring it about for a special purpose or would it have happened anyway as part of the natural course of events?’ But this (like the old question, ‘Have you left off beating your wife?’) makes either answer impossible. In the play, Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls in and drowns. What would you reply if anyone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons wanted her to die at that moment—or because the branch broke?’ I think one would have to say, ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All events in the play are Shakespearian events; similarly all events in the real world are providential events. All events in the play, however, come about (or ought to come about) by the dramatic logic of events. Similarly all events in the real world (except miracles) come about by natural causes. ‘Providence’ and Natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event because both are one. 2. When we are praying about the result, say, of a battle or a medical consultation the thought will often cross our minds that (if only we knew it) the event is already decided one way or the other. I believe this to be no good reason for ceasing our prayers. The event certainly has been decided—in a sense it was decided ‘before all worlds’. But one of the things taken into account in deciding it, and therefore one of the things that really cause it to happen, may be this very prayer that we are now offering. Thus, shocking as it may sound, I conclude that we can at noon become part causes of an event occurring at ten a.m. (Some scientists would find this easier than popular thought does.) The imagination will, no doubt, try to play all sorts of tricks on us at this point. It will ask, ‘Then if I stop praying can God go back and alter what has already happened?’ No. The event has already happened and one of its causes has been the fact that you are asking such questions instead of praying. It will ask, ‘Then if I begin to pray can God go back and alter what has already happened?’ No. The event has already happened and one of its causes is your present prayer. Thus something does really depend on my choice. My free act contributes to the cosmic shape. That contribution is made in eternity or ‘before all worlds’; but my consciousness of contributing reaches me at a particular point in the time-series. The following question may be asked: If we can reasonably pray for an event which must in fact have happened or failed to happen several hours ago, why can we not pray for an event which we know not to have happened? e.g. pray for the safety of someone who, as we know, was killed yesterday. What makes the difference is precisely our knowledge. The known event states God’s will. It is psychologically impossible to pray for what we know to be unobtainable; and if it were possible the prayer would sin against the duty of submission to God’s known will. One more consequence remains to be drawn. It is never possible to prove empirically that a given, nonmiraculous event was or was not an answer to prayer. Since it was non-miraculous the sceptic can always point to its natural causes and say, ‘Because of these it would have happened anyway,’ and the believer can always reply, ‘But because these were only links in a chain of events, hanging on other links, and the whole chain hanging upon God’s will, they may have occurred because someone prayed.’ The efficacy of prayer, therefore, cannot be either asserted or denied without an exercise of the will—the will choosing or rejecting faith in the light of a whole philosophy. Experimental evidence there can be none on either side. In the sequence M.N.O. event N, unless it is a miracle, is always caused by M and causes O; but the real question is whether the total series (say A–Z) does or does not originate in a will that can take human prayers into account. This impossibility of empirical proof is a spiritual necessity. A man who knew empirically that an event had been caused by his prayer would feel like a magician. His head would turn and his heart would be corrupted. The Christian is not to ask whether this or that event happened because of a prayer. He is rather to believe that all events without exception are answers to prayer in the sense that whether they are grantings or refusals the prayers of all concerned and their needs have all been taken into account. All prayers are heard, though not all prayers are granted. We must not picture destiny as a film unrolling for the most part on its own, but in which our prayers are sometimes allowed to insert additional items. On the contrary; what the film displays to us as it unrolls already contains the results of our prayers and of all our other acts. There is no question whether an event has happened because of your prayer. When the event you prayed for occurs your prayer has always contributed to it. When the opposite event occurs your prayer has never been ignored; it has been considered and refused, for your ultimate good and the good of the whole universe. (For example, because it is better for you and for everyone else in the long run that other people, including wicked ones, should exercise free will than that you should be protected from cruelty or treachery by turning the human race into automata.) But this is, and must remain, a matter of faith. You will, I think, only deceive yourself by trying to find special evidence for it in some cases more than in others.
Former Roman Catholic turned ???:
Prayer turns God's attention to your problem, whereas otherwise God would focus less on a particular problem of yours. Prayer also maintains communication and closeness to God.
Myself (a less cynical atheist in some manners):
Prayer represents that while God is always there for you, you do not rely on God for everything. Prayer admits that you need direction in your life, and that you want God to do certain things for you, if they are destined, but not that you need God to run your life for you. You must take some initiative yourself; God may provide the boat, but God is not there to row the boat for you.
Prayer turns God's attention to your problem, whereas otherwise God would focus less on a particular problem of yours. Prayer also maintains communication and closeness to God.
(I realize this quote isn't from you, but I can't address the person who said it)
But if god is all-knowing and all-powerful, why would he need you to draw his attention to your problem? He already knows about your problem and he's absolutely capable of dealing with it, without sacrificing any effort spent on other tasks he may be up to. Omnipotence is the ultimate multitasking tool, and omniscience is the ultimate task scheduler.
But if god is all-knowing and all-powerful, why would he need you to draw his attention to your problem? He already knows about your problem and he's absolutely capable of dealing with it, without sacrificing any effort spent on other tasks he may be up to. Omnipotence is the ultimate multitasking tool, and omniscience is the ultimate task scheduler.
I think the idea is another one of self-reflection, but the Catholic faith is less willing to say that. It's saying: This is what I personally feel is the biggest problem that needs to be solved, that I can't manage on my own and I would appreciate the bonus help from God.
These are not my personal beliefs as I currently don't pray but this question got me thinking so I asked around and gathered the various answers into a general understanding of what those I asked felt.
When they pray they aren't praying to God(I couldn't narrow down a reason why they didn't pray directly to God. Reasons included but were not limited to: "it isn't his place to interfere with ever little event" "(who ever they are praying to) is more sympathetic to their cause" "('') are more merciful and will better convey the message that is being delivered to God", they would pray to whatever saint was best suited to deal with whatever problem they had or even other figures whom were influential but aren't yet sainted. Even when they want to speak to God they don't speak directly, they use an intermediary such as the Virgin Mary, Jesus, or their patron saint. None of the people I asked are biblical scholars in any fashion but each of them is very devout in their beliefs even if they aren't supported completely by the book.
The Catechism of the Episcopal Church defines prayer as "responding to God, by thought and deeds, with or without words."
It describes seven different types of prayer:
Adoration, defined as "the lifting up of the heart and mind to God, asking nothing but to enjoy God's presence."
Praise, defined as the act of praising God "not to obtain anything, but because God's Being draws praise from us."
Thanksgiving, "offered to God for all of the blessings of this life, for our redemption, and for whatever draws us closer to God."
Penitence, defined as confessing of sins and making "restitution where possible, with the intention to amend our lives."
Oblation, "an offering of ourselves, our lives and labors, in union with Christ, for the purposes of God"
And Intercession and Petition, in which intercession is defined as bringing "before God the needs of others," and petition defined as presenting "our own needs, that God's will may be done."
And Intercession and Petition, in which intercession is defined as bringing "before God the needs of others," and petition defined as presenting "our own needs, that God's will may be done."
Okay, I don't see any particular issues with the first five; they're not asking god for anything, but rather giving something to him, in a sense. That's fine.
But what about these last two? Can you respond to the OP's question with regard to them?
I think the problem is that the OP is questioning why an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God requires that we pray as opposed to just fixing everything before its a problem. If that is the problem you are addressing then it should be spelled out and clear. This is personally my main reason I've never been able to believe in God, at least not the God in the bible as written.
I think the problem is that the OP is questioning why an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God requires that we pray as opposed to just fixing everything before its a problem.
Evidently because we're meant to have problems that don't get fixed before they become problems.
Not sure what you mean by "requires that we pray," though.
Not just that, but also that if God does exist and has a "divine plan", praying is pointless because whatever you're asking for will already happen regardless of whether you ask for it or not if it's part of the plan, and it won't happen regardless of your actions if it's not in the plan.
I wouldn't say that makes prayer pointless or incompatible.
But it is noted that what will happen shall proceed as God wills. Matthew 6 even has a passage about this.
7 ‘When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
If you believe that it's all part of some grand scheme for the universe where everything has to happen a certain way, then you should also accept that your prayers have literally zero impact on any given outcome.
This presumes that your actions have zero effect on the outcome.
The purpose of prayer is for our own sake. The act of praying is an act of externalizing our own desires and hopes in the form of words. We do not need to inform God, or make requests/demands; that is not the nature of our relationship with God. Instead, we give thanks to God and acknowledge the role that he plays. God is the friend that is there for everyone to talk with about their problems. Praying brings the words into your consciousness, making you think about them in a more concrete manner. It is a reminder to yourself of what is important to you, and what your wants and needs are. In a sense, praying is like writing one's goals down. It allows you to look more critically and more seriously at these thoughts. After all, God knows what you will say, but you don't necessarily know what you want to say or will say.
But what about these last two? Can you respond to the OP's question with regard to them?
What is the problem exactly?
Intercessory/petitionary prayer is asking a being to help out with a problem he already knows about, and is absolutely capable of solving for you without diminishing his ability to do anything else at all. Why are you bringing it to his attention if he already knows?
Intercessory/petitionary prayer is asking a being to help out with a problem he already knows about, and is absolutely capable of solving for you without diminishing his ability to do anything else at all. Why are you bringing it to his attention if he already knows?
How is this any different from the other forms of prayer which you seem to have no issue with?
Intercessory/petitionary prayer is asking a being to help out with a problem he already knows about, and is absolutely capable of solving for you without diminishing his ability to do anything else at all. Why are you bringing it to his attention if he already knows?
How is this any different from the other forms of prayer which you seem to have no issue with?
The other forms you listed are more along the lines of simply saying "thank you" to someone who holds the door open for you at the store, or personal catharsis. God doesn't need it, but it's not really about getting god to do anything; it's being polite, essentially. Intercessory/petitionary prayer is actually asking god to take action... but why bother, if he already knows exactly what you want him to do and is capable of doing it for zero cost?
It isn't so he knows about the problem, it's so you acknowledge him as a greater being than yourself.
Because what's the point of being an all powerful, all knowing that know one can see or reliably demonstrate your effect on existence if you aren't reminded by your creations which you knowingly made flawed that you are indeed better than them?
Is it just me is or is the idea of an invisible authority that can't be questioned utterly perfect as a way for people to manipulate society? All of you have to do is come up with some way of convincing people you can speak for that authority- just like say, the catholic church, televangelists and biblical scholars do. And what a better way to ensure people continue to believe than having them continue to perform rituals that have them exercise devotion to the cause?
Consider this some justification for my earlier comment here.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I don't think religions are the root of all evil or something, but I associate with them the perpetuation of various aspects of society I find immoral and those are namely mass conformity and aggressive social segregation.
but it's not really about getting god to do anything; it's being polite, essentially. Intercessory/petitionary prayer is actually asking god to take action... but why bother, if he already knows exactly what you want him to do and is capable of doing it for zero cost?
Again, there's no difference between that and every other form of prayer. The idea that God knows the situation long before you ever existed applies there as well.
I think praying is a show of faith. Even if God already knows.. showing faith is a positive thing.
Well, I was previously atheist and a bit of becoming religious catholic again, so I had to reply on this thread.
but it's not really about getting god to do anything; it's being polite, essentially. Intercessory/petitionary prayer is actually asking god to take action... but why bother, if he already knows exactly what you want him to do and is capable of doing it for zero cost?
Again, there's no difference between that and every other form of prayer. The idea that God knows the situation long before you ever existed applies there as well.
But why are you actively asking god for something when you believe he already knows you want/need it?
But why are you actively asking god for something when you believe he already knows you want/need it?
Again, I can apply that same question to every other means of prayer. Adoration: why adore God when he already knows you adore him? Praise: why praise God when he already knows you're going to praise him? Thanksgiving: why thank God when he already knows you're thankful? Penitence: why offer penitence to God when he already knows you're penitent? Oblation: why offer anything to God when he already knows you're going to do so, and everything is his already anyway?
Why are these without problems but petition and intercession problematic?
But why are you actively asking god for something when you believe he already knows you want/need it?
Again, I can apply that same question to every other means of prayer. Adoration: why adore God when he already knows you adore him? Praise: why praise God when he already knows you're going to praise him? Thanksgiving: why thank God when he already knows you're thankful? Penitence: why offer penitence to God when he already knows you're penitent? Oblation: why offer anything to God when he already knows you're going to do so, and everything is his already anyway?
Why are these without problems but petition and intercession problematic?
Because the act of prayer is a social exercise that reinforces the idea of an unquestionable authority, perpetuating the communal attitude of conformity to those moral values that aggregate around this attitude over time as well as belief in synthetic claims that naturally support it.
Perhaps not the answer you were looking for though?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Thanks for reply.
Conservative Jewish:
Atheist:
C.S. Lewis:
orld as they are now and will be a million years hence. God’s creative act is timeless and timelessly adapted to the ‘free’ elements within it: but this timeless adaptation meets our consciousness as a sequence and prayer and answer. Two corollaries follow: 1. People often ask whether a given event (not a miracle) was really an answer to prayer or not. I think that if they analyse their thought they will find they are asking, ‘Did God bring it about for a special purpose or would it have happened anyway as part of the natural course of events?’ But this (like the old question, ‘Have you left off beating your wife?’) makes either answer impossible. In the play, Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls in and drowns. What would you reply if anyone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons wanted her to die at that moment—or because the branch broke?’ I think one would have to say, ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All events in the play are Shakespearian events; similarly all events in the real world are providential events. All events in the play, however, come about (or ought to come about) by the dramatic logic of events. Similarly all events in the real world (except miracles) come about by natural causes. ‘Providence’ and Natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event because both are one. 2. When we are praying about the result, say, of a battle or a medical consultation the thought will often cross our minds that (if only we knew it) the event is already decided one way or the other. I believe this to be no good reason for ceasing our prayers. The event certainly has been decided—in a sense it was decided ‘before all worlds’. But one of the things taken into account in deciding it, and therefore one of the things that really cause it to happen, may be this very prayer that we are now offering. Thus, shocking as it may sound, I conclude that we can at noon become part causes of an event occurring at ten a.m. (Some scientists would find this easier than popular thought does.) The imagination will, no doubt, try to play all sorts of tricks on us at this point. It will ask, ‘Then if I stop praying can God go back and alter what has already happened?’ No. The event has already happened and one of its causes has been the fact that you are asking such questions instead of praying. It will ask, ‘Then if I begin to pray can God go back and alter what has already happened?’ No. The event has already happened and one of its causes is your present prayer. Thus something does really depend on my choice. My free act contributes to the cosmic shape. That contribution is made in eternity or ‘before all worlds’; but my consciousness of contributing reaches me at a particular point in the time-series. The following question may be asked: If we can reasonably pray for an event which must in fact have happened or failed to happen several hours ago, why can we not pray for an event which we know not to have happened? e.g. pray for the safety of someone who, as we know, was killed yesterday. What makes the difference is precisely our knowledge. The known event states God’s will. It is psychologically impossible to pray for what we know to be unobtainable; and if it were possible the prayer would sin against the duty of submission to God’s known will. One more consequence remains to be drawn. It is never possible to prove empirically that a given, nonmiraculous event was or was not an answer to prayer. Since it was non-miraculous the sceptic can always point to its natural causes and say, ‘Because of these it would have happened anyway,’ and the believer can always reply, ‘But because these were only links in a chain of events, hanging on other links, and the whole chain hanging upon God’s will, they may have occurred because someone prayed.’ The efficacy of prayer, therefore, cannot be either asserted or denied without an exercise of the will—the will choosing or rejecting faith in the light of a whole philosophy. Experimental evidence there can be none on either side. In the sequence M.N.O. event N, unless it is a miracle, is always caused by M and causes O; but the real question is whether the total series (say A–Z) does or does not originate in a will that can take human prayers into account. This impossibility of empirical proof is a spiritual necessity. A man who knew empirically that an event had been caused by his prayer would feel like a magician. His head would turn and his heart would be corrupted. The Christian is not to ask whether this or that event happened because of a prayer. He is rather to believe that all events without exception are answers to prayer in the sense that whether they are grantings or refusals the prayers of all concerned and their needs have all been taken into account. All prayers are heard, though not all prayers are granted. We must not picture destiny as a film unrolling for the most part on its own, but in which our prayers are sometimes allowed to insert additional items. On the contrary; what the film displays to us as it unrolls already contains the results of our prayers and of all our other acts. There is no question whether an event has happened because of your prayer. When the event you prayed for occurs your prayer has always contributed to it. When the opposite event occurs your prayer has never been ignored; it has been considered and refused, for your ultimate good and the good of the whole universe. (For example, because it is better for you and for everyone else in the long run that other people, including wicked ones, should exercise free will than that you should be protected from cruelty or treachery by turning the human race into automata.) But this is, and must remain, a matter of faith. You will, I think, only deceive yourself by trying to find special evidence for it in some cases more than in others.
Former Roman Catholic turned ???:
Myself (a less cynical atheist in some manners):
But if god is all-knowing and all-powerful, why would he need you to draw his attention to your problem? He already knows about your problem and he's absolutely capable of dealing with it, without sacrificing any effort spent on other tasks he may be up to. Omnipotence is the ultimate multitasking tool, and omniscience is the ultimate task scheduler.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I think the idea is another one of self-reflection, but the Catholic faith is less willing to say that. It's saying: This is what I personally feel is the biggest problem that needs to be solved, that I can't manage on my own and I would appreciate the bonus help from God.
When they pray they aren't praying to God(I couldn't narrow down a reason why they didn't pray directly to God. Reasons included but were not limited to: "it isn't his place to interfere with ever little event" "(who ever they are praying to) is more sympathetic to their cause" "('') are more merciful and will better convey the message that is being delivered to God", they would pray to whatever saint was best suited to deal with whatever problem they had or even other figures whom were influential but aren't yet sainted. Even when they want to speak to God they don't speak directly, they use an intermediary such as the Virgin Mary, Jesus, or their patron saint. None of the people I asked are biblical scholars in any fashion but each of them is very devout in their beliefs even if they aren't supported completely by the book.
It describes seven different types of prayer:
Adoration, defined as "the lifting up of the heart and mind to God, asking nothing but to enjoy God's presence."
Praise, defined as the act of praising God "not to obtain anything, but because God's Being draws praise from us."
Thanksgiving, "offered to God for all of the blessings of this life, for our redemption, and for whatever draws us closer to God."
Penitence, defined as confessing of sins and making "restitution where possible, with the intention to amend our lives."
Oblation, "an offering of ourselves, our lives and labors, in union with Christ, for the purposes of God"
And Intercession and Petition, in which intercession is defined as bringing "before God the needs of others," and petition defined as presenting "our own needs, that God's will may be done."
But what about these last two? Can you respond to the OP's question with regard to them?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Also God just wants to keep in touch conversationally.
Not sure what you mean by "requires that we pray," though.
I wouldn't say that makes prayer pointless or incompatible.
But it is noted that what will happen shall proceed as God wills. Matthew 6 even has a passage about this.
7 ‘When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
This presumes that your actions have zero effect on the outcome.
Doesn't this just come back to the earlier point, though, of prayer being a way to give yourself direction?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
Because what's the point of being an all powerful, all knowing that know one can see or reliably demonstrate your effect on existence if you aren't reminded by your creations which you knowingly made flawed that you are indeed better than them?
Is it just me is or is the idea of an invisible authority that can't be questioned utterly perfect as a way for people to manipulate society? All of you have to do is come up with some way of convincing people you can speak for that authority- just like say, the catholic church, televangelists and biblical scholars do. And what a better way to ensure people continue to believe than having them continue to perform rituals that have them exercise devotion to the cause?
Consider this some justification for my earlier comment here.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I don't think religions are the root of all evil or something, but I associate with them the perpetuation of various aspects of society I find immoral and those are namely mass conformity and aggressive social segregation.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Again, there's no difference between that and every other form of prayer. The idea that God knows the situation long before you ever existed applies there as well.
I think praying is a show of faith. Even if God already knows.. showing faith is a positive thing.
Well, I was previously atheist and a bit of becoming religious catholic again, so I had to reply on this thread.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
C Long Live Eldrazi C
Why are these without problems but petition and intercession problematic?
What is the point to any of them then?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice