Hoping to be born again [purpose of prayer -- ed. title]

Y’all keep describing prayer as if it were a favor-begging process, like kids sending their Christmas list to Santa Claus or streetcorner beggars rattling their empty coffee cups at you and asking for change.

Of course, a lot of the theistic folk describe it that way, too.

I don’t think reality warps around a person’s wishes. Could be wrong about that, but I’ll remain skeptical. It’s in the same category as Wiccans performing magic rites to conjure outcomes into place.

Prayer for me is communication. One prays for understanding, for insights. Maybe not directly, one may pray for a new car for all that, but the sense in which praying for a new car obtains you a new car is not ::cue special effects:: <ta-daa>! Car! … if praying for a new car actually causes you to end up with a new car it’s as a consequence of you seeing things differently, rearranging priorities in your life as a consequence of prayer getting your head together, of having a better understanding of yourself and your relationship to your world.

Praying for a new car is a deliberately trivial example, but visualize that streetcorner beggar I mentioned earlier, rattling the coffee cup. Imagine him staring at somone getting into a car and wanting it (and the entirely different life that is symbolized by being a car owner) and feeling that with a lot of emotional intensity; things long unfelt and unacknowledged well up, angers and self-pity and awareness of misery, a sense of ruined pride, fear of trying something and failing, fear of caring strongly and becoming bitterly disappointed again, all that stuff. And in an emotionally-intense process, the guy sees his life as if from a great height, gets perspective, sees what-all has led to him being on this corner rattling a coffee cup, sees possibie futures some of which don’t involve being on this same streetcorner still doing this ten years from now. And so let’s say attitudes and behaviors change. No instant transformation but slow changes. Ten years later, the guy takes out his car keys and opens the driver’s side door of his car.

You may be on the verge of saying “But there’s nothing supernatural going on there”. Well, duh! If you define supernatural as “stuff that isn’t real”, lo and behold, the only stuff that’s supernatural is stuff that isn’t real! Which means it isn’t real! Wow!

Religion exists because there are aspects of reality that aren’t readily discerned the way you can see the chair or the tree in front of you. Its subject matter becomes described as “supernatural” because it seems different / apart / beyond everyday reality.

But if something is real, it can be described with more than one set of vocabulary words. If you said to me “freedom, liberty, volition — that stuff doesn’t exist”, I could debate with you using other words, working towards getting you to acknowledge that something I’ve described is true in your estimation, and then I would say "OK, now that’s freeom, that’s volition, that’s what it means. And if you weren’t trolling when you said those things didn’t exist, yet you acknowledge the point I made, you realize that the words “freedom, liberty, volition” as used by me describe something that is real to you, although they may represent a slightly different take on things than what you had normally considered those words to mean.

Well, obviously if I use the word “ghost” to refer to a bowl of ice cream, ghosts exist, but that just means I’m using the word wrong. So it’s only valid, what I said about words and meaning, if the slightly-different-perspective isn’t foreign and unrelated to the word’s everyday usage.

And I’m telling you that despite the admittedly large contingent of people for whom praying is the out-loud repetition of memorized poems, or the equivalent of asking Santa Claus for prezzies, prayer for many people is a process such as I’ve just described, and they would recognize it by my description although I didn’t use words like “God” and other theological terms within it. It’s real, dude.

Your version of prayer sounds like “meditation” or “introspection” to me. If I go by the biblical definition, the word prayer, at the minimum, includes “asking for acts or stuff” where meditation and introspection are never defined that way. It would be much easier for people to understand what the issue is if they used words that more clearly describe the act they’re engaging in. I am frequently introspective, but I never pray.

Actually, He did. Read the Lord’s Prayer.

I thought you were the one so upset about people picking and choosing and ignoring parts of Scripture they didn’t like.

Regards,
Shodan

I think the point is that Jesus described prayer, as you do above, several times. Christians when challenged generally don’t anymore because the easy falsification makes Jesus look like a liar. As such they generally try to promote the value of prayer a lot less objectively. Personally I think prayer is useless and amounts to nothing more than a self pleasing substitute for action.

I totally agree. I think prayer is exactly as effective as witches’ magic spells, which is not very effective at all.

I don’t even think prayer does that. Who are you communicating with? What makes you think it gives you understanding or insights? Don’t you think observing reality, thinking, or reading a good book would be far more effective at bringing about understanding and insights?

I think wanting a new car brings will cause one to modify their behaviors to make owning a new car a reality. I see prayer in this case as a useless step that adds contributes nothing to the process of obtaining the car. Are you aware of any objective evidence that prayer helps this process?

One does not need to define supernatural stuff out of existence to doubt your example. Especially since your example does not appear to appeal to any supernatural forces.

What?

I’m well aware of that Shodan. If you take the time to look, you will see that I acknowledged that Jesus said to pray for god’s will to be done just as the OP described. It was in my first sentence of my first post in this thread. I then went on to say that in other places Jesus said we could ask for, and god would do, anything we want. I quoted the verses that said so, and these are the verses that various people are taking issue with in this thread. These are the verses I was referring to when I used the words you quote above “Regarding the verses in question.” As of yet nobody has debated the meaning of ‘The Lord’s Prayer in Matthew chapter 6.

It is worth pointing out that in Matthew chapter 6, while Jesus suggested asking that god’s will to be done he does not make any explicit (though perhaps an implied in verse 8) prohibition against praying for favors. What Jesus takes explicit issue with is praying in vain repetitions and praying in churches. The latter of which, I wouldn’t be surprised if you and many Christians on this board regularly do. Though I am sure you all have your rationalizations for yet again directly disobeying your lord and savior.

BadChad:

While it may not be an impression you were intentionally trying to cultivate, you’ve given me the impression that you are not trying to understand.

You sure got a bone to pick with Jesus. Did he turn the milk in your cornflakes to pee or something?

You give the impression that you are writing obtusely to avoid being pinned to a discernable and I’ll bet easily criticizable belief. Also you are giving me the impression that you are trying to fish out of some questions that make you uncomfortable.

You sure got a bone to pick with Jesus. Did he turn the milk in your cornflakes to pee or something?
[/QUOTE]

No nothing that bad, he just threatened to torture me and most of humanity, that’s all. I’m just overly sensitive I guess.

What do you think I’m uncomfortable with?

The questions in post #44 that you didn’t answer. Also the questions I asked you in post #37.

So what? Does that make it wrong? Should not a Christian ponder things that are not directly discussed in the Bible?

From a Christian perspective, what should make it wrong is that the bible says all things are predestinated. Predestination rules out free will unless one wants to come up with creative definitions for the terms. The logical impossibility of having free will in a world governed by an all sovereign god also rules out free will.

Beyond that I don’t have any problems with Christians pondering free will, but I do take issue when they flatly assert the purpose of prayer is free will, or whatever purpose, when they have no evidence to back up their assertion. Do you disagree?

Answering badchad’s questions in post #44 as requested:

That which is, as I said before.

The outcome of these experiences is the sense that I understand certain things profoundly and things click into place and make sense. Now, any person who has some kind of visionary experience like that and ends up feeling like that would be a damn fool to simply embrace it all without reservation. If it is truly profound and things really do make sense in the newly-understood patterns that have just been recognized, then they’ll hold up and continue to seem valid when you operate on the assumption that they are — that is, predictions will be borne out, estimations of behavior or guesses about corollary experiences will turn out to be correct, new patterns recognized later or information obtained or events experienced will mesh smoothly rather than contradicting or conflicting, and so on.

Which is how we reality-test all of our suppositions about our world, but it’s more important here, because we’re talking about a headful of theories and understandings where you can’t exactly go back over the train of thought that led you to them.

No.

I said:

If you do not see in that description any process that sounds valid and important, and capable of producing results above and beyond what you describe as “wanting a new car”, … ::shrug:: maybe it’s like an optical illusion or a long slow melody line embedded in a 20-bar phrase of faster music. Enough people, atheist and theistic alike, have indicated that they know what I’m talking about for me to feel confident in saying it’s a real and genuine process, and that therefore the problem here lies either in failing to communicate to you as effectively as I have with others, or in the absence of pertinent experiences in your own life that would correlate with the description.

Oh, do we need to talk about “objective evidence”? (see posts 9 and 13). You haven’t defined your terms, but most people, when they reference “objectivity” in this type of context, mean (or think they mean) something akin to “knowledge directly attributable to empirical evidence alone”. If we are to have a side conference on objectivity and subjectivity, meaning, reality, knowledge, metaphysics, and epistemology, I should tell you right now that I’m a Pirsigian, a Taylorite, and I’m not letting you trot in this notion of “objectivity” as if it were self-explanatory and applicable to what we’re talking about. For more reading: Are emotions useful?; Emotions; Should you trust your instincts? (kinda long); Should People in the future be genetically designed to be emotionless?;What’s the evolutional reason for most feelings?; and, going offsite, Meaning: Robert Pirsig, Emotions, and Radical Feminism, within the larger context The Radical Feminist Perspective In (and/or On) The Field of Sociology.

There do not appear to have been any other questions directed at me in post #44.

Next up: replies to questions posed in post# 37, as also requested by badchad.

I’m sorry, but I can’t tell if you’re saying that praying to a god gives you new understanding and validation or if you’re saying that contemplation and review of circumstances and evidence is what’s doing it. Praying, in the conventional definiton of the word, implies asking for clarity and validation and being gifted with that validation, as opposed to quietly sorting through your thoughts and assets and coming up with a plan. It doesn’t seem to me that you’re saying you’ve asked for something and was granted it, but I just can’t tell.

Kalhoun:

I’m referring to something other than what would normally be described as “looking over the matter and thinking about it”.

I don’t think the process requires a projected sense of some grey-haired fella stroking his chin while you mentally shriek your heart out — or any other variation that involves conceptualizing an “entity” with whom one is communicating — but all other forms of communication we engage in involve an “other” with whom one communicates, and it subjectively feels like expressing all those thoughts and feelings to a “listening someone”.

Be that as it may, I explained upthread that I do not conceptualize God as literally being an “entity” at all, any more than the north wind is genuinely propelled by the puffy-cheeked guy blowing. I’d say prayer is a process of communicating, yet God is not an “other” with whom we communicate when we do. God is, but isn’t in existence separate from “the universe” or “all of creation”; rather, is “the universe”, aka “that which is”, of which we are a part, making God a sense of self, and definitely not “other”.

Not less than “entity” — more.

Yes, exactly. The insights, vision, theory, answer, whatever-ya-wanna-callit, tends to come as if from out of nowhere; in my experience, the understanding tends to precede the ability to render the understanding in words. (You get it as a whole abstraction, like an 11-dimensional diagram that you “get” but can’t draw and, at least at first, lack the skills to describe coherently).

Replying to badchad’s questions in post #37, as also requested.

Again with the “objective”. That makes no more sense than saying “You, who think Gone With The Wind predominantly stresses female courage and strength in different forms, are wrong, an objective reading would force you to see that it is a piece of misogynistic contempt for women. Did you see that rape scene?” The interpretation of any piece of literature is inherently subjective. Of all the places where “objective” can’t be effectively trotted out, this is truly one place it should not atttempt to go. How would be operationalize our variables? By the phrase? The word? The occasion, as described? Do we poll a battery of neutral readers to determine, based on standard deviation, whether there is significantly more evil dumb asshole to each of Jesus’ mutterings than there is compassionate brilliant theorist? Do we have them consider context, and if so, how?

I have my own reading of what Jesus of Nazareth fundamentally said, and what I believe he was trying to accomplish by saying what he said in the various contexts in which he said them.

You are welcome to try to elaborate on, develop, and defend the notion that everything he represented in the context in which he operated was a giant step in a bad direction.

I hear Isaac Newton spoke to people about gravity, and he threatened to hurl people to the ground and dash their brains out if they stepped out over open space, that’s how much he wants to grind us down and force us to obey the laws of gravity. Well, OK, no I didn’t hear that, precisely, because Isaac Newton did not find it useful or necessary to say “Gravity and I are one. Look upon my footfalls and you shall see that I am in Gravity and that Gravity is in me”, and because we don’t have a belief-cult claiming that Isaac Newton was not a human scientist but was the very embodiment of Gravity made flesh, before whom we must fall if we don’t obey the laws of Gravity.

If you want to go into the whole “What did he mean with regards to the whole ‘The Father and I are one’ shtick”, I’m amenable, but I already told you I’m not a Christian, so you should imagine my take on it would be different from theirs. He was the Son of God. I am the Son of God. Lucretia Moss was the daughter of God. What made Jesus of Nazareth special was not that he was Child of God, but that he knew it. Meanwhile, I’ve by now many times covered the whole “God as a sense of Self” and you should have no great difficulty understanding “God and I are one”, especially given normative everyday exposure to eastern-religion phrases such as “One with God”, “Becoming One with the Universe” and so on.

:confused:

I compare them with my understanding of the will of God, how else? I did say “in my opinion”, didn’t I?

When exactly did Blaster Master claim to be Christian?

What evidence does he need? He never claimed the Bible was the source for this particular train of thought.

From his comments, and the context of the discussion, I gather that he is a Christian. I don’t have any problem with him correcting me if my assumption is in error.

This is the straightdope. It is par for the course that if you assert something as fact, that you be able to back it up. He can back up his assertion with anything he wants and I can either accept, or not, his evidence. Considering that when I asked, all we got is crickets, I imagine his evidence is thin at best. Perhaps you know something about him that I don’t and can thereby carry on his end of the argument for him.

From your link it sounds like you are some kind of pantheist. Is that correct? If not can you define your god more clearly and succinctly?

I’m afraid I don’t understand. Can you give some examples of prayers you have made an resulting insights/understandings you have received. Can you tell me how these insights/understandings differ from those of insights/understandings we all have whether we pray or not?

You say that you prayer is superior to reading/thinking with regards to obtaining insights and understanding. Does this mean you think that if we both agreed on a subject in which we were equally ignorant, and one in which our understanding could be objectively measured, that I could go to amazon.com, find books, read about it and think about it, while you spend equal time only praying about it, that you would have a greater improvement in insights/understanding? If yes, would this superiority apply to all topics or just some? If only some, what topics do you think prayer would be superior?

Or maybe I’m right.

In this context I’ll define objective evidence as something measurable, something where I don’t just have to take yours or someone else’s word for it.

AHunter3, you are truly a gifted educator in the truest sense of the word.

I suppose in making your narrative describing Jesus as a hero of yours you might have at least mentioned he said things you considered abhorrent, if you indeed found any. You could if you wanted to, note each time Jesus said something hateful or stupid and compared it to each time he said something loving or wise, but as I recall you just ignored every single example of Jesus saying things you didn’t like.

What do you mean by “fundamentally said” and how does that differ from what is attributed to him in the gospels?

So basically you filter through Jesus’ gospel message and what agrees with you already, you accept as the word of god, while what does not agree with you, you call error. Doesn’t this make Jesus entirely superfluous? Using this method how is Jesus any more a avatar of god’s will than Adolph Hitler?