Prayer Constraints

[Brent]

George,

 

“One could also say that humans are omnipotent (i.e. within the bounds of human nature). The question then is, what are the bounds of divine nature?”

 

This statement/question appears to me mixing apples and oranges. Since humans are not infinite, infallible, and absolutely perfect, then any question of human omnipotence, even within the bounds of human nature, is simply rhetorical, imo.

 

God’s omnipotence, however, is limited only by Ches loving perfection.

 

Brent

[GeorgeW]

Tim Tebowism seems rather popular in football circles right now though.

 

Does he explicity pray for victory? Please cite evidence.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

Brent,

 

My point is that to say, "Within the bounds of that which is consistent with the divine nature, it is literally true that "with God all things are possible," is to say nothing unless the bounds are defined.

 

This is tautological - God can do everything that God can do.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

Thanks Raven

[glintofpewter]

A Colorado sports commentator said that the Broncos signing Manning proved that Tebowing works.

[Brent]

The question of what God can do would likely sidetrack a more limited focus on prayer constraints.

 

Would you care to delve into UP: 2 - THE NATURE OF GOD and UP: 3 - THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD for a few mind expanding ideas regarding the boundaries of Ches infinite perfection and consider a new thread?

 

In your service,

Brent

[glintofpewter]

If God is natural and not supernatural then how would that look. Pantheism suggests that God and the world are one. I like Wayseeker's suggestion sometime ago of God the mother pregnant with the universe - or continually in the process of birthing the universe.This is a panentheism in which God is in and through and with all of the universe but not defined by the universe, like pantheism.

 

Panexperientialism says that all entities or occasions of experience are externally related and internally related. It seems to me that it is in our internal experiences of the universe that we access or experience God and that it is in these internal experiences that we "pray" and have the opportunity to see the possibilities that may arise out of our prayer.

 

At every moment of your becoming, God prehends [remembers] your valuations and your most intimate responses. God takes them up into divine life. And God becomes different as a result. At the next moment of your becoming, God offers back to you those valuations, and the experiences of all other living things, but now valued and interpreted from the divine perspective. The becoming God becomes a part of the becoming you."

 

Dutch

[Neon Genesis]

Does he explicity pray for victory? Please cite evidence.

 

George

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-wetzel_broncos_tim_tebow_playoffs_112711

“That was a huge play,” Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow said. Yes, there was the rookie linebacker making a clutch, overtime tackle of San Diego Chargers running back

Mike Tolbert

for a four-yard loss. The play forced the Chargers into a just-too-long 53-yard overtime field goal attempt that wound up off course.

Not that Tebow saw either play.

“I can’t say I saw too much of it,” Tebow said. “I was praying.”

Praying for a miss?

“I might have said that,” Tebow laughed. “Or maybe a block. Maybe all of it.”

[BillM]

Hi Dutch,

 

That “pregnant God” image still works fairly well for me though I have to admit, at first blush it sounds rather strange.

 

It seems to me that Christianity at its best has always tried to balance God’s immanence with God’s transcendence. Pantheism tends to stress God’s immanence, but because in this view all of nature is God, there is no Moreness to God. Supernatural theism tends to stress God’s transcendence, but because God is seen as separate from us and the world, there is no Nearness or Withness to God. Granted, supernatural theism uses immanent language occasionally, as God shows up for worship services and there are certain holy places and holy items and holy times, but I still find that the basic structure of supernatural theism is that God is not here and not much involved except in answer to prayers.

 

One of the weaknesses of supernatural theism is that what we used to call supernatural is now considered natural. For instance, it was once thought that storms and other weather phenomena were caused by God. We now know that the weather has more to do with high and low pressure systems and the earth’s water cycle than it does the finger of God. Similarly, it was once thought that diseases were a punishment from God on the wicked or the unrighteous. We now know that many are caused by germs and genetic factors as well as bad choices in what we put into our bodies and where we place our bodies. So the “supernatural God” shrinks as we discover more and more how things we once thought were controlled by an omnipotent God are just part of the created order, the way things work.

 

The weakness of both pantheism and panentheism, in my opinion, is that they both have to embrace the suffering and evil in our world as somehow part of God. If God is truly here with us, then it seems that God is not much concerned in using God’s omnipotence to change our world for the better. It seems that God has left that job up to us.

 

The way these play out in my prayer life is that I am no longer a supernatural theist and pray for God to “do” things. As a panentheist, I believe it is my responsibility to be active in the world, changing what I can for the better. So my prayers are more centered on seeking wisdom, guidance, opening my eyes and ears to things around me, and, of course, being thankful for life and all it brings. I don’t pray for rain or for loved ones to be healed of sicknesses. I just can’t do that anymore as I don’t think that form of prayer “works.” I realize most Christians would disagree with me, but that just how I feel based on my observations of the efficacy of petitionary prayer. So I see prayer as being more about asking God what I can do than about asking God to do something.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

The weakness of both pantheism and panentheism, in my opinion, is that they both have to embrace the suffering and evil in our world as somehow part of God. If God is truly here with us, then it seems that God is not much concerned in using God’s omnipotence to change our world for the better. It seems that God has left that job up to us.

 

 

Another solution would be to say that good and evil don't really exist and are just human-made illusions we have created but that opens up a whole nother can of worms.

[Hornet]

Brent

 

"Within the bounds of that which is consistent with the divine nature, it is literally true that "with God all things are possible."

 

One could also say that humans are omnipotent (i.e. within the bounds of human nature). The question then is, what are the bounds of divine nature?

 

George

 

I believe that omnipotence should be defined as having unlimited power rather than the ability to do anything. Since God has unlimited power, He cannot have any weaknesses. Since God doesn't have any weaknesses, He cannot do evil.

 

Just because someone cannot do a certain task does not mean that he is lacking in power. For example, no one can make a square circle. Not being able to do this task does not mean he is lacking in power. He cannot do it because the task is logically contradictory.

[Raven]

IMO, God designed human beings with intelligent brains, and also free will. It is not up to God to make the world a better place, I don't think; it is up to us to recognize the gifts we have been given, and use them in ways to make a better world for ourselves. It's easy to ask why God doesn't magically feed all the starving children in Africa - I prefer to ask why the malovent governments in charge of those areas make decisions that create an environment for children to starve to death. They have free will, and brains, and they have used them to do evil things. We can pray for them, that they will have a change of heart and show mercy and be generous, but in the end, it is often up to the individual. God can call to people (and I believe He does) but people don't have to answer.

 

It's not an easy question, and I'm glad this thread has been opened.

 

I think for me, the reason I don't tend to pray for things that are out of this world reflects what I've always thought about God and the universe: things tend to work out as they are meant to - though it's not always obvious. It's maybe naive, and falls into the "God works in mysterious ways" type of thinking, but truly, I belive that some things are, simply because they are. By design alone, bumblebees are not supposed to be able to fly, but they do. (Perhaps they prayed for it? ) It just is, and perhaps it's part of a bigger plan that we puny humans are simply too small to see.

 

What do I pray for? On a bad day, I pray for strength and ease from pain. On a good day, I pray thankfully and hope for more to come. I pray for my loved ones, for answers to difficult situations. I vent my frustrations and whisper my hopes. I pray for the ability to say and do the right thing, and to be of some use. Maybe to some it is childish, but it makes sense to me.

[Raven]

@ Myron,

 

I liked your post about your beautiful prayer - I tried to vote it up, and of course accidentally voted it down. I'm very sorry I don't know how to undo it, but I'll try!

[JosephM]

Raven,

Took care of accidental vote down with my vote up... Joseph ----- someone else will have to vote up to get where you wanted it as i am only allowed 1 vote either way myself and no way to vote twice on same post

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Hope I clicked on the right post by Myron.

[Raven]

Thanks, Joseph and Dutch. You guys are spectacular!

[NORM]

Although theists claim that God is omnipotent and responds to prayer, it seems to me that (theist) prayer has certain constraints. There are things that would be within an omnipotent God’s ability, but are not requested.

 

I've never quite understood the purpose of prayer in the Christian faith.

 

In Judaism, prayer is an open dialogue with G-d. In fact, arguing with G-d is commonplace.

 

In Islam, it is an affirmation of what Allah is.

 

In Shintoism, it is a communion with the Universe (which includes the Divine). Ditto Buddhism, Taoism, and most other Eastern religions.

 

Christianity seems alone in asking G-d for intervention, or to get stuff, or to be healed - selfish stuff. Then there are the group prayer sessions that seem more about spreading gossip about other church members than anything remotely resembling communication with a deity.

 

I once served on a church Council where the Chairperson would spend nearly 30 minutes each meeting pontificating his particular (warped) views of Christianity in the guise of "prayer." Something like that would NEVER happen in a Jewish prayer - they pontificate to your face!! No need to bring G-d into the discussion.

 

Heh!

 

In my current situation, I no longer pray "to" a divine something. My prayer is really meditation. I try to focus on something relaxing, like a field of tall grass on a warm, summer afternoon. I'll reflect on issues of concern in my life and the lives of other member of my family, community or co-workers. Sometimes it yields a solution, and sometimes it remains unresolved; but I will come to terms with the things I cannot change.

 

However, I do know of some Christians who are quite charitable in their petitions to G-d. They pour out their concern for the lives of others, and I think that is appropriate. Whether or not there is someone or something on the other end is irrelevant. Good karma and positive thoughts can do no harm.

 

NORM

[Neon Genesis]

Interventionist prayer seems to be the most popular form of prayer in Christianity but there is a tradition of centering prayer in Christianity you might be interested in, Norm: http://www.centeringprayer.com/

[Brent]

George W wrote: "Although theists claim that God is omnipotent and responds to prayer, it seems to me that (theist) prayer has certain constraints. There are things that would be within an omnipotent God’s ability, but are not requested…

I suggest that there are constraints that implicitly recognize divine limitations while saying there are none."

 

I agree. While saying there are no limitations on divine omnipotence, theists’ prayers should implicitly recognize that there are acts within God’s potential capability that Che will not unwisely do.

 

144:2.4 "Which of you who is a father, if his son asks unwisely, would hesitate to give in accordance with parental wisdom rather than in the terms of the son's faulty petition? If the child needs a loaf, will you give him a stone just because he unwisely asks for it? If your son needs a fish, will you give him a watersnake just because it may chance to come up in the net with the fish and the child foolishly asks for the serpent? If you, then, being mortal and finite, know how to answer prayer and give good and appropriate gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the spirit and many additional blessings to those who ask him? Men ought always to pray and not become discouraged."

 

144:2 – THE DISCOURSE ON PRAYER

144:3 – THE BELIEVER’S PRAYER

144:4 – MORE ABOUT PRAYER

144: 5 – OTHER FORMS OF PRAYER

 

Loving regards,

Brent

[Neon Genesis]

I believe that omnipotence should be defined as having unlimited power rather than the ability to do anything. Since God has unlimited power, He cannot have any weaknesses. Since God doesn't have any weaknesses, He cannot do evil.

 

Just because someone cannot do a certain task does not mean that he is lacking in power. For example, no one can make a square circle. Not being able to do this task does not mean he is lacking in power. He cannot do it because the task is logically contradictory.

That just seems like a distinction without a difference to me and not even a biblical one. Though Christians claim god is all-powerful, the book of Judges portrays God as losing a battle against an enemy tribe just because they happened to have iron chariots.

[soma]

I feel there is no need to pray for objects or actions to happen because if one truly has faith that God is omnipotent he will know that God provides everything that is needed. To pray for our own benefit is a reaction to our surroundings. I think it is OK if people do pray for things because hopefully it can prepare them to arrange their thoughts to be more perceptive and more in harmony with everything and everyone. Hopefully it makes them more realistic, more tolerant and more satisfied; therefore, one is more opened minded to the omnipotent God that is all pervading. It is like asking a millionaire for fifty dollars. It is foolish because he will give only fifty dollars, when he might have intended to give a lot more. If we believe that God knows everything; then God knows what we need better than our own limited minds. If He is all loving, He surely will provide what we need.

[Yvonne]

I think that prayers of petition are quite common in the OT - especially the book of Psalms. Also, in the gospels, we're told "Ask and you shall receive...", "Anything you ask the Father in my name He will give...". Now, I personally have some real issues with both prayers of petition and prayers of intercession, primarily because of just what started this theme. Why pray for this and not for that? Why not prayer for vast wealth if that vast wealth will be used to help others? Is that selfishness? Why not pray for someone to be restored to life - Jesus did it with Lazarus.

 

No, I don't think prayers of petition and intercession really accomplish much, except, as my friend said to me, to help me realize my literal and complete dependence on God. Not God as an interventionist - but God as the Ultimate Reality, the Source, or what have you.

 

Living in the Midwest, I often hear people thank God for protecting their homes and property from tornadoes. My question would be - why yours and not your neighbors? Someone I know said that tsumanis and hurricanes and earthquakes are God's will. When I asked her how that could be when so many innocent people die in them, she said we couldn't know God's reasons. To that I say "hogwash!". When we pray for things, whether we get them or not, or accept something as "God's will", I have to ask the question, "But what does that say about God?" If two people are in a hospital room dying of cancer, one is cured and one is not because one was prayed for, what would that say about God? If my home is destroyed by a natural disaster and yours is not, though we both prayed for protection, what does that mean?

 

If you allow me an analogy - a mom has two kids asking for the same dessert and she arbitrarily gives one dessert and not the other, we would say she was being unfair. If mom chooses not to tend to a scraped knee, we would call her unfeeling (or worse). Yeah, I have some real issues with an interventionist God. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Yvonne]

I'm sorry if I'm being terribly dense tonight, but what does praying (or not) in public have to do with the thread of this conversation?

 

I just wanted to be a little clearer about my previous statement. I think prayers of petition ARE biblical. I don't see anything wrong with them. But speaking strictly for myself, I don't find them particularly useful.

 

On the other hand, I am not above "taking my needs before God", sort of like talking to a friend about some problem - not expecting my friend to fix the problem, just getting it off my chest.

[PaulS]

I'm sorry if I'm being terribly dense tonight, but what does praying (or not) in public have to do with the thread of this conversation?

 

It digressed at Post 48, Yvonne. Sometimes it happens.

[JosephM]

Thanks Yvonne & Paul,

 

Moved conversation from post 48 on that was a bit off topic to new thread "Praying in Public to keep this thread on topic with OP ... JosephM (as Moderator)