On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:18:57 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > That's interesting. So you're suggesting that prayer literally works > in all cases (which *does* raise some flag issues regarding your own > troubles), that there literally is a God personally involved with > and in charge of every aspect of creation and -- with the above > quoted statement -- that no matter what anyone does, God's way will > be the way that's followed?
Nope. I do believe that prayer works, but it is a sort of work that is based on faith and inherently unprovable. Studies that "prove" it works are nonsense, because we have no "ground truth" to compare. We can only evaluate a test if we know the answers, but unless we have the mind of God, we cannot know the answers to prayer. I have faith that God answered our prayers for Wes' safety; his death wasn't the answer I would have chosen, but it would be a very teensy, tiny little god whose answers were the same as mine. At the same time, it is clear in Scripture that our prayers can influence God; the Bible even speaks of God repenting after being petitioned by people. I didn't say that God was in charge of all things, only involved. It seems clear to me that God allows us great freedoms, refraining from wielding omnipotent power. > (That is, if one is going to fail, one will, no matter how hard one > tries? That God won't lend any sort of hand to self-starters? Not *because* they are self-starters. > Or do > you mean instead that it's just as useful to kneel and beg the > ceiling as it is to get out and work for change? That *can't* be > what you're suggesting. Can it?) No, it cannot. Nor is it a choice between the two. I think we are called to live in the world as spiritual beings, not to forget either the world or our spirituality. > If the above's a valid assessment, you might want to look at the > Koran as a comparative religious exercise, because what I just > described here is very, *very* similar to what Islamic > fundamentalists believe as well. The confusing thing about fundamentalism is that it is based on things that are true. It is not fundamentalism because the underlying facts are wrong, it is because they are incomplete, yet the fundamentalists insists that they have the whole story, there is no more to be discovered or understood. This I think is true of many flavors of fundamentalists, not just the religious. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
