quote:Originally posted by Foust: it's always the theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies.
It will always be theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies. Atheists use other things to justify the slaughter of babies...It would just be silly for an atheists to use God as an excuse to slaughter babies.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, you can bring up Pol Pot... but the big difference is that none of the atheists in this conversation are defending slaughter. It's the theists doing all the justification.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It will always be theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies.
In this specific case, it is God Himself who is said by theists to have slaughtered babies, and we atheists are trying to figure out the justification.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I see a child choking and I just sit and watch, instead of trying to help them, I'd be a monster.
What if you were omniscient and you knew that (1) the child would pass on to an afterlife where he would be eternally happy, (2) the child's death would inspire his parents to start a campaign for child safety which would save the lives of thousands of kids, (3) that if you intervened then it would cause far more bad in the long run than if you did not intervene, and (4) that in the afterlife the child will agree that his death was for the greater good and agree with the decision? Would you still be a monster if you knew all these things with absolute certainty and allowed it to happen?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you asserting that, in those cases in which God permits a child to die, these things -- or similar things -- are always true?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem accepting that it's possible that a being could be powerful enough and wise enough to know when suffering and death are better than the alternative, either via omniscience and reliable net joy calculus, or by some kind of compensatory damages award [like you get some kind of semi-permanent orgasmic experience that never gets old, or something so much better than that that I can't even think of it ], or simply with a more informed perspective on what is ultimately good.
So what? We have minds. We have to evaluate things based on what we can understand. Even if God is real, he hasn't shown us why/how he's justified in doing atrocious things (if you believe the stories of him doing these things), except (if you believe the stories) by "might makes right", which even our puny intellects have determined is immoral. Or, by some version of "you'll just have to trust me on this."
The 1,2,3,4 of your hypothetical justification has not been demonstrated to be how God works. It's just a post hoc rationalization of something that we aren't supposed to be able to understand in the first place (if you believe that God is so much wiser and more powerful that his actions cannot be evaluated by our pitiful selves).
I'd like to believe that God can explain to my satisfaction why he wants/allows/causes bad things to happen, but until he actually does, why would I bother working my way to the justification from the assumption that it's justified?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Armoth, of course I believe in God.
Armoth is probably aware of this, but if anyone new to the board is posting, you should understand that when kmb says "I believe in God", you should read "I like to say the words `I believe in God', it makes me feel virtuous". She doesn't actually believe anything in the ordinary English meaning of the word.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you asserting that, in those cases in which God permits a child to die, these things -- or similar things -- are always true?
No, I'm asserting that we don't know all the consequences of any given act, and God presumably does - which puts God in a very very different situation than we are in when we face moral questions like that.
quote:I'd like to believe that God can explain to my satisfaction why he wants/allows/causes bad things to happen, but until he actually does, why would I bother working my way to the justification from the assumption that it's justified?
I'd like to believe my mechanic can explain to my satisfaction why he needs me to buy a new $500 part for my car. But sometimes he can't, or his explanation doesn't really make sense to me - and in that situation, I either have to choose to trust him or risk my car by not taking his advice.
And my car is far simpler to explain to me than the entire future course of events across the universe and the afterlife.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you argue that God, in his ultimate compassion, was justified in killing the babies of Sodom and Gomorrah, than can you argue against euthanasia? If our choice is to allow someone to live in pain and suffering, or by a gentle pill, escort them to life everlasting, are we not as morally required to give them the pill as God was to those poor children?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See Tres' reply above, Darth, which directly addresses what he sees as the pertinent distinction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax: If a positive consequence of the child dying is that other children would later be saved, then we know that saving children is a positive goal, and an omniscient God should be able to figure out a way to save each one individually.
You can't argue that God is omniscient, so he's probably doing things for a very good reason, but also argue that he can't come up with a better way to do things than the blunt, crude, sloppy way they are currently done, which involves disease, death, and horrible suffering.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Though, oddly, it seems to be sufficient for my priest.
Firstly, your priest likely 'believes' the same way; if he didn't you'd find another. Secondly, what incentive does he have to criticise your 'belief'? And thirdly, talk about your appeals to authority. If you were going to go that route, why not assert that your 'belief' is sufficient for your god? I'd be just as convinced, and you'd score extra snippiness points.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't argue that God is omniscient, so he's probably doing things for a very good reason, but also argue that he can't come up with a better way to do things than the blunt, crude, sloppy way they are currently done, which involves disease, death, and horrible suffering.
Why not? It's not hard to imagine a worse world than the one we have.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet neither is it hard to imagine a better one.
Heck, I do not think I exaggerate when I say that if someone randomly made you all-knowing, you could come up with some decent ideas to improve our existing situation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My answer to the death of the child example was just intended to show how being omniscient makes a big difference in moral choices.
But yes, He could probably also come up with some way to save the children individually by rearranging other things about the universe. I would think that if saving children was His only goal, He could easily save every child. He could presumably just make everyone immortal. So the fact that He doesn't, I'd guess, means He has some reason for not doing so.
If God is omniscient then I think God knows perfectly what the world would be like if He set it up in such a way that everyone was perfect, nobody ever suffered, and there was no death. And I think He sees this world, suffering and all, as better in some significant way than that other hypothetical world - better in a way that would be impossible if He eliminated all suffering. I suspect suffering allows this world to be more meaningful than it would be without suffering. But this is something that might be much clearer to an omniscient god than it is to human beings with a very limited perspective. To us, our 100 years or so in this life and our happiness during that period seems most important, but there's no way for us to know if we'd feel the same way if we were omniscient.
I really don't know why God wouldn't give us a clear explanation of His purpose, although the Bible seems to suggest its because we wouldn't understand. So I see that as leaving us in a situation similar to that of me and my mechanic - we can choose to trust, or we can choose not to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, if your mechanic were incapable of explaining to you why you needed a new fuel pump, we could suggest that you get a better mechanic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Dude. Sometimes 'yes' or 'no' are not honest answers.
This is not one of those times. I asked a straightforward, simple yes/no question, and you deliberately dodged it
These are very simple questions. I believe that had you prayed for the health Kara Neumann, her beta cells would not have regenerated, and she still would have died due to her diabetes.
Do you disagree with that assessment?
quote:I'm comfortable with what I've already written, and I don't think I need to explain further.
That's great! The part where you said that some people have to die so that other people can learn things was elucidating. But I take it that you don't feel the need to tell anyone what lessons were gleaned from the death of children. I guess more children will have to die before we all learn it, right? Well, what matters isn't that an innocent child died, what matters is I'm one of the chosen people who's a pupil, not one of the others who turned out to be a lesson.
Or maybe, I'm one of the people who chose to be a pupil, and not one of the willing souls who chose to be a lesson? If that's the case, why should I feel bad for the lessons? That's so much easier.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kom, your complaint about snippiness points in this context is pretty funny!
ETA:
quote:You might want to back off on Scott just a little bit, and have a bit more tact. The things you are discussing are very real to him and his family, as he has a daughter who is very sick, and I am certain he agnonizes over what to do for her more than any one person should have to.
It's good to see what your response to this sort of respectful request is, swbarnes. It elucidates, one might say, your attitude towards other people for the community in general.
But allow me to address your complaint: the question itself isn't honest, nor is it straightforward. It's a trick, a rigged game. Asking Scott, "Do you believe your prayers would cure a child of a serious disease?" is a deceptive, rigged question because he wouldn't rely on prayer alone to do that. Of course you know that because you're not an idiot, but because you persist in behaving very rudely on this topic you're going to act as though this is a big, "A HA! moment!" when of course it obviously isn't.
There's nothing inherent in belief in the power of prayer that requires belief in the power of prayer exclusively. Honestly, that's such a fundamental bit of knowledge about how religions believe themselves that the fact that you're bringing out your accusing finger over this serves to highlight the very dishonest method in which you're participating in this discussion. Scott is perfectly within his rights not to participate further in the discussion with you, and your question isn't straightforward. Technically straightforward =/ straightforward.
quote:There's nothing inherent in belief in the power of prayer that requires belief in the power of prayer exclusively.
How about requiring prayer to have some sort of effect whatsoever? It seems to me that someone who does not believe (medicine+prayer) works better, in a measurable, repeatable way, than medicine alone (or prayer alone) does not really have any belief about the power of prayer. He just likes to repeat the words, in an effort to feel he's doing something. (I admit that this is actually not that different from a lot of modern medicine, but that's a separate discussion.) So the question might be, "Do you think that prayer makes the medicine more effective?" And if the answer is no, then I don't see that there is a belief in the power of prayer at all; there's just a habit.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about this: There exist many atheists, and in fact, many more non-Christians. Sometimes, specific events cause people to lose their faith.
If God's overall goal isn't to save innocent children, many Christians will say that it's to become closer to his followers, or have us all become Christian, or allow us to enjoy the grace and love of his worship or however you like to word it.
If God can act on earth, why not act to prevent people from losing faith?
I don't accept the cop-out that it invalidates free will, because you can make a situation where people will freely choose to keep their faith, by eliminating whatever would have caused them to lose it, be that a priest molesting a child or a rival religion convincing them to join or a dying child or a YouTube video of Sam Harris.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You might want to back off on Scott just a little bit, and have a bit more tact. The things you are discussing are very real to him and his family, as he has a daughter who is very sick, and I am certain he agnonizes over what to do for her more than any one person should have to.
I know that. Frankly, expected a more firm "The Neumanns were horribly wrong, they should have known that sick children die when they receive nothing but prayer. There is a thousand year long history of dead children demonstrating what happens when God, and not proven medical science, are trusted to treat dangerously ill children."
But the point of asking questions is to get answers I didn't expect.
quote:It's good to see what your response to this sort of respectful request is, swbarnes. It elucidates, one might say, your attitude towards other people for the community in general.
Okay, sure. Strike that argument, I'll leave BlackBlade out of things entirely. Kara had no beta cells. Her parents trusted in God and the power of prayer completely, and she died of diabetes. Anyone disagree with that?
quote:But allow me to address your complaint: the question itself isn't honest, nor is it straightforward. It's a trick, a rigged game. Asking Scott, "Do you believe your prayers would cure a child of a serious disease?" is a deceptive, rigged question because he wouldn't rely on prayer alone to do that.
I wouldn't jump in front of a speeding train, are you claiming that I can't say what would happen if I did?
Because I can. I would be crushed. Organ failure, no functioning brain, I could go on.
Why would such a question be deceptive? You want to ask me what I would think if I did somehow wake up after such a thing, ask me. I won't think it's "rigged". I'll lay out the premises I'd be working under, make note of the ones that I currently hold that I would reject given the new circumstances, etc. It's not hard, it's not deceptive, or a trick at all. Why would it be?
quote:There's nothing inherent in belief in the power of prayer that requires belief in the power of prayer exclusively.
Light was exhorting people to trust "just a little" in God. Surely, the theists think that more is better, right? Where is the limit? No one seems willing to say, not even to say "the limit is when you trust God to save the life of your child. Don't trust God to do that." The Neumanns did, and Kara lost her life.
quote:Honestly, that's such a fundamental bit of knowledge about how religions believe themselves that the fact that you're bringing out your accusing finger over this serves to highlight the very dishonest method in which you're participating in this discussion.
Many religious people do believe in the power of using prayer exclusively. How is it dishonest to believe that some people believe this? And I wasn't asking if anyone here thought that prayer alone was a good idea, I wanted to know what they thought would happen if they tried it. So far, no one will even hazard a guess.
It would be the easiest thing in the world for the theists to say straightforwardly "If I had prayed for the healing of Kara Neumann, she still would have died of diabetes".
I suspect that some of the theists here really believe that to be the truth. But no one will say it.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't let me forget to answer this. I'd like to on my own, but I have a great philosophy book that does a better job doing it than I would, and I'd prefer to quote from there...
quote:Kara had no beta cells. Her parents trusted in God and the power of prayer completely, and she died of diabetes. Anyone disagree with that?
Yes (i.e. me).
quote:Light was exhorting people to trust "just a little" in God. Surely, the theists think that more is better, right? Where is the limit? No one seems willing to say, not even to say "the limit is when you trust God to save the life of your child. Don't trust God to do that." The Neumanns did, and Kara lost her life.
Trust is a pretty broad thing. For instance I may have complete trust God will provide salvation for me should I keep the commandments He has given me, and there is no limit to that trust, no amount that is too much. So trusting God for a specific person has no limit in that sense. But your question went in another direction, or at least the way I read it it did. There you seem to be saying "where is the limit to trust when it comes to things you would trust Him to do?" In that version there are quite a lot of limits (at least for me). For instance, I wouldn't trust Him to tie my shoes, or to inflict pain on me. He may do either, but I have no reason to believe that He would so I do not trust Him to do so. In the explicit scenario given I trust He would act as most benefits me and others (such as my hypothetical daughter) and that may include saving my daughter's life without medical treatment. It may also include Him saving her life through or in tandem with medical treatment. Or it may not result in saving the life of my daughter.
quote:I know that. Frankly, expected a more firm "The Neumanns were horribly wrong, they should have known that sick children die when they receive nothing but prayer. There is a thousand year long history of dead children demonstrating what happens when God, and not proven medical science, are trusted to treat dangerously ill children."
But the point of asking questions is to get answers I didn't expect.
Why don't you ask next if Nazis are bad, swbarnes, and should be scorned? If kicking puppies is awful? Though of course you're exaggerating quite a bit, since how much of medical science was 'proven' a thousand years ago? Sorry to interrupt your angry, insulting rant on the virtues of empirical science with a little fact n' stuff.
The point of asking Scott the question you asked him was not to get an answer you didn't expect. You're lying when you say that, and it's pretty obvious to anyone who read it, I feel very comfortable in saying. The point in asking that question, in that way, was an attempt at a zinger, to paint him into a corner, to get your, "A ha! moment." Everyone's done `em, and I've certainly done more than my fair share, and it will take a lot of persuasion for you to convince me you were sincerely seeking out an unexpected answer.
But even if it wasn't obvious, I have your own post to prove what your motive was: "You didn't do that, exactly as I knew you would not."
So let's just dispense with that bit of BS, shall we? Your motive wasn't truth-seeking seeking or perspective-learning, it was winning. That's fine, but since you're so blatant about it you may as well cop to it.
quote:I wouldn't jump in front of a speeding train, are you claiming that I can't say what would happen if I did?
Because I can. I would be crushed. Organ failure, no functioning brain, I could go on.
Why would such a question be deceptive? You want to ask me what I would think if I did somehow wake up after such a thing, ask me. I won't think it's "rigged". I'll lay out the premises I'd be working under, make note of the ones that I currently hold that I would reject given the new circumstances, etc. It's not hard, it's not deceptive, or a trick at all. Why would it be?
No, this is why it's a deceptive question: because you imply by asking the question that Scott, or anyone else you ask the question, is the sort of fellow who believes that prayer should be relied upon exclusively. It smacks of a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question. That's why it's a rigged question, and in this context it's particularly odious not just because of personal reasons but for the more general reason of, hey, awful situation overall.
Here's why it's a trick: why are you asking Scott, or anyone else around here for that matter, if they rely on prayer alone to accomplish something such as healing? You are aware that such people are an incredibly tiny minority of the entire population, right? And you know now that he isn't one of them. Yet still you persist. "What would happen..." "What would happen..." "What would happen..." Well, I can answer your question for my own part at least. In this case I think it's most likely she would have died. Now before you start on another colorful rant, please remember that I'm being much more careful in my use of words like 'most likely' than you are with your use of words like 'many'.
But of course if I were in that situation, I sure as hell wouldn't just be relying on prayer to get the job done anyway, which is why it's a deceptive question-pretty much my entire point.
quote:Light was exhorting people to trust "just a little" in God. Surely, the theists think that more is better, right? Where is the limit? No one seems willing to say, not even to say "the limit is when you trust God to save the life of your child. Don't trust God to do that." The Neumanns did, and Kara lost her life.
Wait a second, let me see if I understand this correctly. Light is a theist. Light is espousing one particular idea-trust 'just a little' in God. It is very likely that theists believe that 'more is better', therefore we can treat all theists as though they believe in this idea to its uttermost extreme until they've explicitly rejected it when asked in a cross-examination method? Disregarding how much of an outlier Light's perspective is on many issues around here even among theists as we have seen already from the limited time s/he has spent here?
Yes, that's a sound logical approach towards analyzing a population, swbarnes. Very scientific!
quote:Many religious people do believe in the power of using prayer exclusively. How is it dishonest to believe that some people believe this? And I wasn't asking if anyone here thought that prayer alone was a good idea, I wanted to know what they thought would happen if they tried it. So far, no one will even hazard a guess.
'Many'? Very precise language. What does that mean, exactly? I think that when you consider what that word means in the minds of most people, and then you consider how many religious people there actually are...no, not many religious people believe in using the power of prayer at all. Unless, somehow, the small minority of atheists and agnostics have a staggering over representation in our health care system in this and every other nation on the planet that is. Your central idea is critically flawed, but that's not surprising-it was very badly expressed in the first place. Or rather dishonestly expressed.
No, you weren't directly asking if anyone here thought, specifically, they should rely on the power of prayer alone. You were beating around that bush very blatantly, though, in such a way that it was quite clear. You're simply not that good at rhetoric or politics, swbarnes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe no one brought this joke yet.
It's about a priest. He's in a desert,walking and praying, when he realizes he's in quicksand, and it's swallowing it. Suddenly, he sees a firemen's truck coming to him. The chief fireman tells him: "We're on our way to take care of a fire, but we can see you're in trouble. No problem, sir! We'll get you out of there in no time!" The priest answers: "no need, my brave man! I trust in God, He's the one who'll get me out of there".
Time passes, the sand swallows his legs, his torso. Then the truck comes back, and the chief fireman gets out again and asks the priest: "are you sure you don't need our help, sir? Only you have sand up to your neck!" The priest answers: "I trust in God and God only. You can leave me there."
More time passes, sand swallows the priest entirely and he dies. He goes to heaven, storms past St Peters and enters straight into God's office, yelling : "why the heck did you let me die there ? I had faith in you, why didn't you help me?" God raises his eyes to the man and says "I sent you the fire brigade twice, my son. What else did you expect me to do?"
[ February 09, 2011, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Dude. Sometimes 'yes' or 'no' are not honest answers.
This is not one of those times. I asked a straightforward, simple yes/no question, and you deliberately dodged it
I think I provided a pretty extensive and complete answer about how I'd behave in that situation. I don't think it can be categorized as a "dodge" under the normal definition of the word.
Unfortunately simple affirmation or denial on these topics doesn't feel completely honest to me. The audience here is biased enough that I feel that a deeper explanation is warranted.
Sorry, bro: ask all the questions you want, but you don't get to control the responses.
EDIT: That laugh smiley is WAAY too mean for my purposes. Think of it as a gentle laugh, rather than the raucous mockery it seems to be meant to convey.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anna, my guess is that no one has brought up that joke yet because it is kind of a cliche by now. But you have a point.
swbarnes, your understanding of prayer is fundamentally flawed. The Neumann's understanding of prayer is also fundamentally flawed. Not surprising; lots of people make this misunderstanding. Prayer is complicated. If by prayer you mean some magic, voodoo ritual to make God do something then, no, prayer would not have saved Kara from diabetes.
Is that sufficiently straightforward?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always heard it told with a man on the roof of his house in a flood, and God sent a rowboat, a motorboat, and a helicopter.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anna: It's an old joke, but it's still a good answer to swbarnes. I think.
Did the priest actually pray to be saved? The joke doesn't say. Are you just saying God gets credit for whatever good stuff happens and that prayer is irrelevant?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point of the joke is that God works through people and that people who expect magic tricks are looking for the wrong thing.
The application to the Kara tragedy would be God saying, "But I sent you doctors and scientists and insulin. What were you waiting for?"
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anna: I can't believe no one brought this joke yet.
It's about a priest. He's in a desert,walking and praying, when he realizes he's in quicksand, and it's swallowing it. Suddenly, he sees a firemen's truck coming to him. The chief fireman tells him: "We're on our way to take care of a fire, but we can see you're in trouble. No problem, sir! We'll get you out of there in no time!" The priest answers: "no need, my brave man! I trust in God, He's the one who'll get me out of there".
Time passes, the sand swallows his legs, his torso. Then the truck comes back, and the chief fireman gets out again and asks the priest: "are you sure you don't need our help, sir? Only you have sand up to your neck!" The priest answers: "I trust in God and God only. You can leave me there."
More time passes, sand swallows the priest entirely and he dies. He goes to heaven, storms past St Peters and enters straight into God's office, yelling : "why the heck did you let me die there ? I had faith in you, why didn't you help me?" God raises his eyes to the man and says "I sent you the fire brigade twice, my son. What else did you expect me to do?"
While I agree that a story with some similarities to this one is the best way for the theist to answer swbarnes, I don't think this parable conveys the whole subtlety of the issue.
If one of God's top priorities is to give us our Free Will, it follows pretty directly that God can't act through other people to help us or to answer our prayers. When he gave us free will, he gave up all control over our actions. So if you're sinking in quick sand, and some other free human being saves you, that has to have been that person's choice, and not God's.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Are you just saying God gets credit for whatever good stuff happens and that prayer is irrelevant
No, I'm not. I'm saying that sometimes we humans have to be each other's angels. Prayer doesn't "work" this way.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If one of God's top priorities is to give us our Free Will, it follows pretty directly that God can't act through other people to help us or to answer our prayers. When he gave us free will, he gave up all control over our actions. So if you're sinking in quick sand, and some other free human being saves you, that has to have been that person's choice, and not God's.
God can inspire the fire brigade to go where the priest is, and the people can decide to answer to that inspiration or not.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not working through people as if we were automatons. When we do God's work through our free will being in sync with God's will. And that is a big part of what prayer does, bring our will closer to God's will and, therefore, doing God's work which is also our work.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If one of God's top priorities is to give us our Free Will, it follows pretty directly that God can't act through other people to help us or to answer our prayers. When he gave us free will, he gave up all control over our actions. So if you're sinking in quick sand, and some other free human being saves you, that has to have been that person's choice, and not God's.
You can "control" other people without taking away their free will. The simplest way to do this is by asking them to do something for you. If I ask a friend of mine to deliver a package of medicine to you which cures an illness you have, then I have acted to heal you, even though I acted through my friend - and I have done so without taking away his free will.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By giving other people the opportunity to help us when we need help, God is providing those people with a chance to do good and be blessed for it, and us with a chance to show gratitude and reciprocate. Free will is multiplied rather than restricted.
By giving us free will God isn't necessarily giving us an unlimited range of choices every time. He is giving us the power to choose for ourselves between right and wrong. There might only be two choices. God will not force us to choose the right one, even if when we choose the wrong one we cause terrible harm to ourselves or others.
As we choose the right, the choices we have grow. As we choose wrong, our choices diminish. If I choose not to take meth when it is offered to me, I am able to continue freely making choices for myself in the future. If I choose to take the meth, very soon my choices are very, very limited.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
According to the Bible, God's plan is intricate and delicate and involves the Universe, down to every single little bird.
There are various kinds of prayer.
There are prayers of thanks.
There are prayers of affirmation.
But if I pray for God to change his plan, then I am working against his plan.
Working against God's plan is EVIL.
So if I lose my wallet and pray for God's help in finding it, I am being evil, for surely it was God's plan that I lose my wallet.
The priest sinking in the quicksand is part of God's plan. For the priest to pray to God to save him, to argue against the plan of God is to rebel against God. And we all know that those who rebel against God's plan find only death.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if I lose my wallet and pray for God's help in finding it, I am being evil, for surely it was God's plan that I lose my wallet.
No, you lost your wallet because God wanted you to pray so he could demonstrate the power of prayer by allowing you to find your wallet.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your line of reasoning there is point 2: "According to the Bible, God's plan is intricate and delicate and involves the Universe, down to every single little bird."
God is aware of every bird, but does not force each person into a His plan, meaning each action taken does not reflect the will of God. Losing your wallet may have been cause by God, but is much more likely caused by you leaving it on the table after you paid for lunch.
quote:Working against God's plan is EVIL.
So if I lose my wallet and pray for God's help in finding it, I am being evil, for surely it was God's plan that I lose my wallet.
The priest sinking in the quicksand is part of God's plan. For the priest to pray to God to save him, to argue against the plan of God is to rebel against God. And we all know that those who rebel against God's plan find only death.
This reads as very condescending, as if you find those of faith discussing their silly ideas with you incredibly amusing and childish. Did you intend it that way or am I misreading here?
posted
You lost your wallet because sh** happens. By asking God for help, you are inviting him to help you.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vitamin C also does not cure diabetes, but that doesn't mean that people with diabetes should ignore or avoid Vitamin C.
Prayer has a certain role in a faithful person's life, but that role is not "when I pray for things, they magically happen, and I have no problems because they all can be resolved by praying hard enough".
The role is more analogous to calling your mother for advice during your first semester away from home in college. Only occasionally does she have the power or inclination to directly reach out and affect your life (via wire transfer!) and often, even the advice she gives doesn't necessarily pan out the way you imagine it will when she gives it.
But you do gain great benefit from having a wiser person to talk through your problems with, someone who can influence your own choices for the better and cut off unhelpful lines of reasoning, and who, very rarely, is actually in a position to directly help you out. Mostly, though, it's really just nice to be involved with each other and continue to maintain that relationship as you grow older and change.
To me, that's the role of prayer. It isn't some rain-dance-style rite designed to reliably induce miracles from on high. When people use it that way, I think they're doing it wrong. But believing that doesn't render prayer pointless and empty for me, either. It still has its value, and in a situation where a family member is in peril, I will be praying every time.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
], or simply with a more informed perspective on what is ultimately good. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
