On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
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.
IOW, it's all about faith. ;) The above is a much "better" answer than many might have given.
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.
Here's something else, then. What if there were Iraqis praying for an outcome that could only have been possible if Wes didn't survive?
Ostensibly anyone who prays (except possibly a Satanist) is praying to fundamentally the same deity as everyone else. Does that statement make sense to you, or are you of the persuasion that some religions have the right god and others don't?
IOW is it the heart that is heard, or is it the clacking of beads/burning of incense/intoning of litany that reaches the deity's notice?
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.
It's clear in scripture, but it could be argued that scripture is interested more in solidifying a body politic than it is in disseminating objective truth. Thus when a people's prayers are answered it's because their god is on their side; when the prayers aren't answered it's because (1) they're astray; or (2) their deity is testing/tempering/delaying/whatevering them.
I didn't say that God was in charge of all things, only involved.
I thought you wrote that the universe would grind to a halt without a deity. That seems a lot more than involved to me. That reminds me of a god that is (for instance) constantly supplying propulsive force to keep the planets in motion.
That may well not be what you meant, but phrases such as "Without God's constant, total involvement, all of creation would come to a halt and we would cease to exist" suggest that image to me.
It seems clear to me that God allows us great freedoms, refraining from wielding omnipotent power.
That's certainly one interpretation, sure. ;)
(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.
No, of course not -- but to they who do self-start, help is not denied, correct?
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.
"In the world, not of the world" -- traveling in samsara -- non-attachment, OK, I can see that. It just seemed for a moment that you were suggesting that it was as effective to pray for orphans as it was to go out and adopt a few. I'd have some issues with such a suggestion. ;)
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.
Umm, umm, maybe.
I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything -- it might really be of interest to you to look into the teachings of Islam if you haven't yet. There are some real similarities between it and Pauline adherence. (I suppose all the Abrahamic religions would have that resonance, but the echoes really are deep and startling.)
It's also good to have an idea what exactly this "crusade" is fighting. Right-wing Christianity and fundamentalist Islam have much, *much* more in common than they have in difference.
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.
You forgot to add "in my opinion". ;)
This I
think is true of many flavors of fundamentalists, not just the religious.
To the extent that a mindset is represented and a given philosophy just stapled to it, yeah, I can see that.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
