What are the odds?

Fanny Cradock · 19-08-2008 01:10AM

PDN, do you consider any prayer answered by God a miracle? Or is there a distinction between asking for something you need (money, for example) and the parting of a sea?

Zombrex · 19-08-2008 10:41AM

PDN wrote: »

Carrying a rabbit's foot is based on the belief that an inanimate object will somehow bring you luck.

The two are in no way equivalent unless you start from an atheistic assumption that all belief in the supernatural is junk.

No, if one starts from the assumption that a rabbit foot can bring a person good fortune the two are equivalent.

They aren't equivalent if you reject the rabbit foot as being nonsense, where as your belief that a supernatural deity listens and answers requests for good fortune isn't nonsense.

Don't be making this out to be an issue with atheism. It is your rejection of some supernatural superstition and the embrace of other supernatural superstition that is the issue here.

The two things are equivalent if neither are true or if both are true.

PDN · 19-08-2008 10:58AM

Wicknight wrote: »

The two things are equivalent if neither are true or if both are true.

Thank you for proving my point!

If neither are true then you are coming from a standpoint of atheism.

If both are true then you are affirming the superstition of carrying a rabbit's foot - something which I think no sensible Christian would affirm.

Therefore my position that the two are not equivalent is the only sensible position for a Christian to take. As such it is perfectly reasonable for me, as a Christian posting in the Christianity forum, to articulate such a view.

PDN · 19-08-2008 11:22AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

PDN, do you consider any prayer answered by God a miracle? Or is there a distinction between asking for something you need (money, for example) and the parting of a sea?

There are, as I see it, four possible views concerning God's intervention in the world.

a) The atheist view that God does not exist. Therefore He has made no impact on the world and cannot intervene.

b) The deist view that God is an absentee landlord. He created the world and set natural laws in place, but after that He sits back and lets things take their natural course.

c) The Judeo-Christian view that God created the world, set natural laws in place, and intervenes at various times in human affairs. This intervention can take the form of speaking to people, working miracles that appear to suspend natural laws, or simply causing things to happen in natural ways that cause 'coincidences' to happen in response to prayer. Christians disagree among themselves as to how much God is controlling things (eg Calvinists and Arminians).

d) The magical or superstitious view where everything is attributed to the actions of a God or gods. By this view a stone released from your hand falls to the ground, not because of gravity, but because God wills the stone to fall. This view hinders science because there is no point in trying to discern a pattern in what is merely the whim of a deity.

Obviously, as a Christian, I choose option (c) and that is my final answer!

Now, since God is all-powerful, it is no harder for him to intervene in one way than in another. Therefore, for Him, there is no distinction between parting the Red Sea and prompting someone to choose one gas station over another.

From our perspective, it takes much more faith to believe in a 'miracle' than in a coincidence. Therefore we make a distinction between the parting of the Red Sea and God prompting us to choose a particular gas station.

To the atheist, a miracle that breaks the laws of nature would cause them serious problems. Therefore there would be a clear distinction between miracles and things that can be written off as coincidences. Therefore reports of miracles must be discounted by one means or another (eg, The reports are unreliable; mass hallucination; no camcorders present; wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, this conflicts with my worldview so you must be lying etc.)

vibe666 · 19-08-2008 11:53AM

PDN wrote: »

c) The Judeo-Christian view that God created the world, set natural laws in place, and intervenes at various times in human affairs. This intervention can take the form of speaking to people, working miracles that appear to suspend natural laws, or simply causing things to happen in natural ways that cause 'coincidences' to happen in response to prayer. Christians disagree among themselves as to how much God is controlling things (eg Calvinists and Arminians).

rather than trying to re-quote your answers to my previous (admittedly late night rant) post, the point I was trying to get across was centred around 'option c'.

it seems like it is a widely held belief that god sees and knows everything. by that rational he must know that children all over the world are being abused or killed on a daily basis all over the planet.

it also seem to be a widely held belief that god has the power/will to intervene in things that are happening in the world and change things by guiding people or influencing their decisions.

it also seems to be that time and space are irrelevant to him as he can be everywhere at once, which I think is covered by the whole omnipotence thing anyway.

you also mention that I don't know how many children have been saved by god from any number of horrors, but given the information above I can tell you for a fact that that number can only be be absolutely zero.

there is no way that if a benevolent god exists who has the power to change things in the world that he would allow ANY children to be harmed like this.

we're not talking about a scuffed knee or a broken arm from a fall playing. this is rape, murder and mutilation. even if a child survives whatever ordeals they are put through they will never fully recover and some will even grow up to follow in their abusers footsteps and do the same to others or even commit suicide because of what has happened to them.

If I'm wrong in believing that he does not exist in the way that you claim he does then he is very obviously allowing this kind of thing to happen to children right in front of him and doing nothing to protect them. innocent children without sin are left suffering whilst he looks on and does nothing.

this is no different than you or I seeing someone abusing a child in the street and doing nothing about it.

Zombrex · 19-08-2008 11:59AM

PDN wrote: »

Therefore my position that the two are not equivalent is the only sensible position for a Christian to take.

It doesn't depend on being a Christian for them to be equivalent.

A person who isn't a Christian and believes in a rabbits foot is exactly the same as a Christian who believes God answers prayers. Both are putting faith in a supernatural superstition to bring them good fortune.

They are equivalent.

It is simply your belief that some how your particular supernatural superstition is more reasonable and justified than a person putting faith in an "inanimate object" as you call it, that calls you to say they aren't equivalent.

Really there is no difference.

This all smacks of the same attitude you displayed over your dismissal of the Islamic belief in Mohammad's views on Jesus, a few weeks ago. You really seem to have trouble viewing your own supernatural beliefs at the same level that you judge the supernatural beliefs of others.

What ever you say about atheists and humanists, at least we are consistent.

Schuhart · 19-08-2008 06:57PM

PDN wrote: »

I must say, Schuhart, I have normally found you to be a fair and thoughtful opponent in any debates we have had. I would almost think that it is you that is jetlagged today rather than me!

Indeed, and I feel much the same way. I find myself wondering where your usual ability to set out a reasoned case for belief has gone. Because I find you do, generally, manage to achieve that. Equally I agree its best when we can discuss things on the basis of agreeing that both belief and disbelief are potentially rational positions. But, as I said, I don't see this as an atheist/theist thing.

I think I've laid out what I have to say - and Wicknight is substantially saying anything I'd add. Does a night's sleep make it look any different to you? (And maybe it doesn't - and this is just something we cannot figure out at the moment.)

PDN · 19-08-2008 08:18PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't depend on being a Christian for them to be equivalent.

A person who isn't a Christian and believes in a rabbits foot is exactly the same as a Christian who believes God answers prayers. Both are putting faith in a supernatural superstition to bring them good fortune.

They are equivalent.

No, they are only equivalent to you because you have a presupposition that they are both superstition.

If one is indeed based on a fact that you are unaware of then they cannot be equivalent at all.

If you want to proceed with arguments that presuppose a rejection of everything supernatural then go and play in the A&A forum.

If you want to proceed with arguments that assume all supernatural claims to be equally valid then go and play in the Spirituality forum.

If you want to discuss Christian beliefs and issues, where some supernatural claims are viewed as more valid than others, then feel free to hang out in this forum.

This all smacks of the same attitude you displayed over your dismissal of the Islamic belief in Mohammad's views on Jesus, a few weeks ago. You really seem to have trouble viewing your own supernatural beliefs at the same level that you judge the supernatural beliefs of others.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that some supernatural claims are more valid than others.

Zombrex · 19-08-2008 08:36PM

PDN wrote: »

No, they are only equivalent to you because you have a presupposition that they are both superstition.

No, they are equivalent because they are both belief in a supernatural superstition. Whether the superstition is real or not is actually irrelevant.

I'm not quite sure where you major problem with this is.

For example, saying chocolate is the best ice cream is an equivalent statement to saying honeycomb is the best ice cream. The two are mutually exclusive statements, they can't both be true, but doesn't stop the two statements being exactly the same. Which ice cream is actually the best is irrelevant.

You believing that your god sometimes grants good fortune on people who pray to him is the same as someone keeping a rabbits foot around with the belief that it will grant them good fortune. The fact that, to you, these two are mutually exclusive doesn't change that, any more than the ice cream example. They are still equivalent statements, assertions of belief in supernatural superstition and its ability to grant good fortune.

What seem to be basically saying is along the lines of someone saying that it is perfectly reasonable to say that chocolate is the best ice cream, but that is nothing like saying that honeycomb is the best ice cream. You can't compare the two beliefs. Which is a bit silly consider they are basically the same.

PDN wrote: »

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that some supernatural claims are more valid than others.

Not really, given that there is no way to judge such a claim in any meaningful fashion. Your belief in a super powerful god who from time to time makes good things happen for people is as valid as someone believing a dead rabbit foot does the same thing.

PDN · 19-08-2008 09:00PM

Wicknight wrote: »

No, they are equivalent because they are both belief in a supernatural superstition.

No, they are not both belief in a supernatural superstition. The word 'superstition' is a pejorative term that demonstrates how you are approaching this discussion with your mind already made up. You are, therefore, begging the question.

Whether the superstition is real or not is actually irrelevant.

That sentence is in fact meaningless. It is like saying, "Whether the lie is true or not ..." Your prejudices are stopping you from engaging in rational discussion.

You believing that your god sometimes grants good fortune on people who pray to him is the same as someone keeping a rabbits foot around with the belief that it will grant them good fortune.

I do not believe that God sometimes grants good fortune on people. That is yet another example of your preconcenceived assumptions hindering any kind of meaningful discussion. This is nothing to do with 'good fortune'. My belief is that God sometimes, in fact often, acts in response to a specific request.

What seem to be basically saying is along the lines of someone saying that it is perfectly reasonable to say that chocolate is the best ice cream, but that is nothing like saying that honeycomb is the best ice cream. You can't compare the two beliefs. Which is a bit silly consider they are basically the same.

You're doing it again. A completely invalid analogy. It only applies if you have already prejudged that all supernatural claims are purely subjective.

You're wasting our time. All you do is keep asserting your prejudices and preconceived assumptions and presenting them as if they are arguments. Unless you've got something new to say this is wasting both our time.

Schuhart · 19-08-2008 09:08PM

Can I suggest that part of the problem may be the use of that word 'supernatural'. Because I rather think its cloaking a distinction. There is 'supernatural' in the sense of believing a supernatural origin to this reality. But that does not necessarily require a belief that supernatural things, in the sense of ghosts and paranormal stuff. In terms of an example of this, I'd think of the priest who taught me science in school. He was one of those people who felt that science revealed the majesty of God's creation. He did not expect miraculous cures or the like. He would accept the outcome of any scientific investigation. But he could speak with great enthusiasm, and even used words like 'beauty', as he described what he saw as the wonder of how all this stuff works.

Then there's supernatural in the sense of miracle cures, fortune telling and the like. I think its clear once we step into this area that we are in shark infested waters. I take it that PDN will accept that there are many charlatans out there. I know he'll argue his corner of this field is different, but I really cannot see why that is so. Even God giving someone a psychic dig to shift out of a parking spot thirty seconds early involves a divine manipulation of this reality. Its only superficially different to a grander miracle - I refuse to believe that present company don't see the issue at stake here.

Once you've popped that cherry, you've popped it. If you claim you've a direct line to God that allows you to pop people out of their parking spaces to let you in, you simply have entered the same twilight zone occupied by the like of Tony Quinn Yoga's claims of distance healing by everyone thinking you cured.

Apologies as I'm basically repeating what I've already said. But just take it as an indication of incredulity at the line you are defending.

PDN wrote: »

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that some supernatural claims are more valid than others.

I would not use the word 'more valid', although clearly you will. But just to indicate that I don't think this is a clear atheist/theist divide either, I actually do agree that some religious claims (I want to avoid the term 'supernatural' as I think it has become loaded) are more reasonable than others. Specifically, I do think that Islam has a more incredible basis than Christianity. That said, the fact that whole societies can be based around Islam and many perfectly decent folk with expertise in different fields can hold that faith to be true should be an indication to us that large amounts of people can be attached to belief systems that seem to have questionable foundations.

But that's another thread.

Zombrex · 19-08-2008 10:26PM

PDN wrote: »

No, they are not both belief in a supernatural superstition. The word 'superstition' is a pejorative term that demonstrates how you are approaching this discussion with your mind already made up. You are, therefore, begging the question.

I'm not sure what you mean by "with your mind already made up" ... mind made up about what?

Are you suggesting that belief in a god that "answers specific requests" (to use your phrase which means exactly the same as grants good fortune a phrase which you seem to take offence) is not supernatural superstition but belief in a rabbits foot is?

Are you serious?

Splendour · 19-08-2008 11:27PM

santing wrote: »

I don't know your circumstances, and I don't want to sound cheap, but He is the God who really sees. If you read the end of Hebrews 11, if you read the Psalms, you can see that many have struggled with this before.

Indeed they have-hence my immersing myself in scripture for encouragement!
And no, you don't sound cheap, but also encouraging...Thank you

Splendour · 19-08-2008 11:39PM

santing wrote: »

The original question - from Satan - was that Job worshipped God because of his wealth. God had proven Satan wrong. That God gave job twice as much was solely based on grace.
And yes, sometimes I am jealous as well - but I may not be able to handle wealth the way Job did!

Given that Job passed on some of the inheritance to his daughters (unheard of in those days), I think Job was very wise in handling his wealth

PDN · 20-08-2008 07:13AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "with your mind already made up" ... mind made up about what?

Your mind made up that everything that claims to lie outside observed laws of nature is lumped together and therefore equivalent.

Are you suggesting that belief in a god that "answers specific requests" (to use your phrase which means exactly the same as grants good fortune a phrase which you seem to take offence) is not supernatural superstition but belief in a rabbits foot is?

Belief in a God who answers prayer is not supernatural superstition. God is 'supernatural' in the sense that the one who created nature is by definition above the confines of nature. If such a God exists, then it is plainly not superstition to pray to Him and to ask Him to intervene in our lives.

Wicknight, if you want to add something new to this discussion then feel free to do so. All you are doing at present is persisting in asserting the same old nonsense again and again. You don't believe in God - you've made that clear. You don't believe in prayer - you've made that clear. That is your prerogative. But to repeatedly assert in the Christianity forum that a basic Christian principle such as prayer is 'superstition' or belief in 'fortune' is trolling. Stop it if you wish to be able to continue posting here.

vibe666 · 20-08-2008 10:34AM

I don't think that is very fair.

by dismissing the rabbits foot analogy you are effectivly doing the same thing.

to you, your religion is a very real palpable thing like I'm sure a luck rabbit's foot is to someone who believes in that but both are outside of our measurable physical world. whether or not your interpretation of god exists or not is no more relevant than whatever is believed to make a rabbits foot work.

until the presence or absense of something can be physically measured there's no way to prove or disprove any of it with any degree of certainty. we all have our beliefs whatever they may be, crossing our fingers, praying to god, wishing on a star or whatever but the facts remain the same.

the very essence of 'faith' in any religion is based on a persons own certainty that their god exists and that their religious leaders and books are telling the truth but there are many religions and surely they can't all be right and with no specific proof that does not require any faith to believe there is no way to say for sure who is right or even who is most definitely wrong.

TravelJunkie · 20-08-2008 02:13PM

Schuhart wrote: »

Can I suggest that part of the problem may be the use of that word 'supernatural'. Because I rather think its cloaking a distinction. There is 'supernatural' in the sense of believing a supernatural origin to this reality. But that does not necessarily require a belief that supernatural things, in the sense of ghosts and paranormal stuff. In terms of an example of this, I'd think of the priest who taught me science in school. He was one of those people who felt that science revealed the majesty of God's creation. He did not expect miraculous cures or the like. He would accept the outcome of any scientific investigation. But he could speak with great enthusiasm, and even used words like 'beauty', as he described what he saw as the wonder of how all this stuff works.

Then there's supernatural in the sense of miracle cures, fortune telling and the like. I think its clear once we step into this area that we are in shark infested waters. I take it that PDN will accept that there are many charlatans out there. I know he'll argue his corner of this field is different, but I really cannot see why that is so. Even God giving someone a psychic dig to shift out of a parking spot thirty seconds early involves a divine manipulation of this reality. Its only superficially different to a grander miracle - I refuse to believe that present company don't see the issue at stake here.

Once you've popped that cherry, you've popped it. If you claim you've a direct line to God that allows you to pop people out of their parking spaces to let you in, you simply have entered the same twilight zone occupied by the like of Tony Quinn Yoga's claims of distance healing by everyone thinking you cured.

Apologies as I'm basically repeating what I've already said. But just take it as an indication of incredulity at the line you are defending.I would not use the word 'more valid', although clearly you will. But just to indicate that I don't think this is a clear atheist/theist divide either, I actually do agree that some religious claims (I want to avoid the term 'supernatural' as I think it has become loaded) are more reasonable than others. Specifically, I do think that Islam has a more incredible basis than Christianity. That said, the fact that whole societies can be based around Islam and many perfectly decent folk with expertise in different fields can hold that faith to be true should be an indication to us that large amounts of people can be attached to belief systems that seem to have questionable foundations.

But that's another thread.

There is something no one has touched on.

Basically, it's to do with our relationship with God. Prayer is a key part of that relationship. Prayer can take the form of a very formal request from someone who is a christian but does not read the bible every day, maybe calls on God once every 2 weeks. They might say ; Dear God, my friend eliza is in hospital for an operation, please watch over her. Thank you Lord.

Then there is someone with a deeper relationship with God. A minister is the prime example of this. An atheist who doesn't believe in God, etc etc can never understand this relationship.
For example, this person wakes up and the first thing he does is say thank you lord for a wonderful day. Then he might go into some quiet time, praise God, sing, read the bible. And a big part of this is also being quiet and listening to God. This is where God starts to talk to the person. The minister might do this 2-3 times a day. Also, there is a continous dialogue between the minister and God. So, although I don't pray for parking spaces, I can understand that someone would, it would be like asking a friend for something minor.

There are two differences between the first person's prayer and the second's. The latter has a relationship with God to be able to involve God in ALL aspects of his life. This, to me, is the ideal way for a Christian to live.
And yes, it can seem like a bubble (in the sense that no one else can understand this life) But what's wrong with that?

The first person's prayer is just as valid to God as the latter and vice versa. The only difference is how comfortable the person is with God - and that is what the resultant prayer will be about.

If you have an aquaintance you see at your bowling club once a month, and say your wife who you see every day - who would you feel more comfortable asking for something personal?

What I mean is, the person praying for their sick friend would never think about praying for a parking space because they don't have that kind of relationship with God. But someone else wouldn't have a problem praying for the space because they do.

Sorry for repeating myself along the way.

JimiTime · 20-08-2008 02:33PM

^^Don't know if your above point will make an atheist see any different, but I must say it sounds good to me. What i find about prayer, is that I shouldn't ask for those trivial things (parking spaces etc). However, I think your point above is a very good one. Got me thinking anyway. My brother and I had a similar conversation a while back. I was jokingly saying how myself and my wife would love a house in Dalkey. He said, well why not pray for it? I was saying 'It feels like a misuse of prayer'. I suppose I'm still a little uncomfortable with it, but I'll meditate on the point you raised.

santing · 20-08-2008 02:48PM

Thanks TravelJunkie,

The following sums it up nicely (emphasis is mine):

Pro 3:6 GNB Remember the LORD in everything you do, and he will show you the right way.

Fanny Cradock · 20-08-2008 02:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

^^Don't know if your above point will make an atheist see any different, but I must say it sounds good to me. What i find about prayer, is that I shouldn't ask for those trivial things (parking spaces etc). However, I think your point above is a very good one. Got me thinking anyway. My brother and I had a similar conversation a while back. I was jokingly saying how myself and my wife would love a house in Dalkey. He said, well why not pray for it? I was saying 'It feels like a misuse of prayer'. I suppose I'm still a little uncomfortable with it, but I'll meditate on the point you raised.

That pretty much sums up my position. I never feel i should trivialise partition prayer by praying for trivial things. However, this can lead to no prayer at all.

JimiTime · 20-08-2008 02:56PM

Here's the thing. When Jesus said about faith, i.e. you can tell a mountain to move etc, was he only talking to the apostles? I.E. Does that only apply to those who are specially selected as apostles?

TravelJunkie · 20-08-2008 02:58PM

JT and Santing

Yes, it was hard writing that because it only brought attention to my lack of QT and involving God in everything.

I thought about it since, and I thought 'I should be doing more for God'

and the next revelation was 'doing more for God' isn't campaigning about Aids, it's forfeiting watching a re-run of friends for some quiet time.

Is God too busy for us, or we too busy for God?

TravelJunkie · 20-08-2008 03:01PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Here's the thing. When Jesus said about faith, i.e. you can tell a mountain to move etc, was he only talking to the apostles? I.E. Does that only apply to those who are specially selected as apostles?

It applies to us too. Unfortunately sometimes because although it's a great scripture, it also puts a responsibility on us to believe that we shall receive something when we ask for it

JimiTime · 20-08-2008 03:04PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That pretty much sums up my position. I never feel i should trivialise partition prayer by praying for trivial things. However, this can lead to no prayer at all.

Thats the thing. I suppose the question I'm asking now is, Why wouldn't I invite Gods input into any aspect of my life? Why would I think I'm abusing prayer, if I need a parking space for example. Do I think God would be saying, 'r u for real, I aint got time'. I think Travel Junkie's post gave a great analogy about this. Certainly food for thought.

TravelJunkie · 20-08-2008 03:07PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats the thing. I suppose the question I'm asking now is, Why wouldn't I invite Gods input into any aspect of my life? Why would I think I'm abusing prayer, if I need a parking space for example. Do I think God would be saying, 'r u for real, I aint got time'. I think Travel Junkie's post gave a great analogy about this. Certainly food for thought.

I think your question is something we might all be thinking right now. Me especially.

JimiTime · 20-08-2008 03:09PM

TravelJunkie wrote: »

It applies to us too. Unfortunately sometimes because although it's a great scripture, it also puts a responsibility on us to believe that we shall receive something when we ask for it

If thats the case, I can tell the cancerous tumour to flee its victim and it will. Unless of course, I really don't have even the slightest bit of faith. Which I find hard to believe. There is no Caveat in what Jesus says, i.e. No bit that says, you can tell the mountain to move, and God will then decide if he wants to move it. Which is why I tend to think of it as being directed at the chosen apostles.

TravelJunkie · 20-08-2008 03:14PM

I know where you're coming from - it's the 'faith' teaching that is very popular amongst charismatics. like, well you didn't get cured because your faith wasn't strong enough. That is wrong. But I don't know how to read into that verse otherwise because I do take the bible as applying to everyone.

TravelJunkie · 20-08-2008 03:22PM

JimiTime wrote: »

If thats the case, I can tell the cancerous tumour to flee its victim and it will. Unless of course, I really don't have even the slightest bit of faith. Which I find hard to believe. There is no Caveat in what Jesus says, i.e. No bit that says, you can tell the mountain to move, and God will then decide if he wants to move it. Which is why I tend to think of it as being directed at the chosen apostles.

Something else I just thought of;

I think that sometimes prayer isn't enough for some things. Lets call it cancer or something equally terrible. It might require group intercession or spiritual warfare (this is very intense stuff - seen it once)

What are your thoughts on this PDN?

PDN · 20-08-2008 04:26PM

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Something else I just thought of;

I think that sometimes prayer isn't enough for some things. Lets call it cancer or something equally terrible. It might require group intercession or spiritual warfare (this is very intense stuff - seen it once)

What are your thoughts on this PDN?

Some interesting thoughts coming out in the thread now!

I really hope that we don't have different kinds of prayer for 'ministers' than for others. I'm a firm believer in the priesthood of all believers and I think that every Christian should be a minister (in the word's true sense of being a servant of Christ). Therefore I think we all need to make our faith a part of our everyday lives.

There is undoubtedly a relationship between faith and answered prayer, but this is not so cut & dried as some would have us believe. I remember somebody once trying to tell me that it was my fault my daughter died because I mustn't have had enough faith for her healing!

The Bible says Jesus didn't work many miracles in his home village of Nazareth because of the people's unbelief (Matthew 13:58). It also tells us that one individual was healed because of the faith of his friends who brought him to Jesus, not on account of his own faith (Mark 2:5). So faith is important, both on the part of the one being prayed for and also on the part of others.

The New Bible also teaches that there is power in agreement - "If two or three agree in my name". This is one of the reasons why it is good for Christians to congregate together instead of just trying to practice an individualistic faith on their own. If I am praying for something that seems a big ask, that requires a lot of faith, I try to get others to pray with me. I might phone or email a few friends and ask them to pray, or we might get the whole church to pray for something together in our Sunday services. (Of course we reserve this for the big stuff where people have life threatening diseases etc. I've never asked the whole church to pray for a parking space for me.

)

santing · 20-08-2008 04:33PM

JimiTime wrote: »

If thats the case, I can tell the cancerous tumour to flee its victim and it will. Unless of course, I really don't have even the slightest bit of faith. Which I find hard to believe. There is no Caveat in what Jesus says, i.e. No bit that says, you can tell the mountain to move, and God will then decide if he wants to move it. Which is why I tend to think of it as being directed at the chosen apostles.

JimiTime,

Prayer is not a vendingmachine. It doesn't work like "put in enough" and make your choice. Prayer is having a conversation with God. It is discovering what his will is, because not our will, but his should be done! That is what the "faith bit" is about.

If we pray because we want something, we may end up asking selfish things - and God isn't obligued to answer those prayers.

So the right order is 1) discover what Gods will is 2) Pray for it. An example of that is given by James about Elijah:

Jas 5:16-18 ESV Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (17) Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. (18) Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.

The same James said earlier:

Jas 4:3-8 ESV You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. (4) You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (5) Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"? (6) But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (7) Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (8) Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Elijah knew that God would send rain, because God had promised that to Him:

1Ki 18:1 ESV After many days the word of the LORD came to Elijah, in the third year, saying, "Go, show yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain upon the earth."

What are the odds?

Comments