Do you believe God intervenes & answers prayers?

[Guest]

No, JAK.

In your post to harmony (?) you state that manipulate=influence. I posted a dictionary definition of the word manipulate as follows:

manipulate

verb
1. influence or control shrewdly or deviously; "He manipulated public opinion in his favor"
2. hold something in one's hands and move it
3. fake or falsify; "Fudge the figures"; "cook the books"; "falsify the data" [syn: fudge]
4. manipulate in a fraudulent manner; "rig prices" [syn: rig]
5. control (others or oneself) or influence skillfully, usually to one's advantage; "She manipulates her boss"; "She is a very controlling mother and doesn't let her children grow up"; "The teacher knew how to keep the class in line"; "she keeps in line"
6. treat manually, as with massage, for therapeutic purposed

According to the above, to manipulate does not involve simple influence, it is to influence Old Testament control shrewdly or deviously, influence skillfully to one's advantage.

How does prayer effect an attempt to influence or control shrewdly or deviously, or influence God skillfully for one's advantage?

Excepting cases of bargaining, where is the shrewdness, deviousness or skillfull influence of God? Again, I disagree with your use of the word manipulate in relation to prayer.

Jersey Girl

The False Extension

Prayer is an attempt to “influence” or “control.” Whether that is shrewd, devious, or well-intended is irrelevant to the intent to manipulate.

Irrelevant or extended extrapolations are diversionary. While it’s designed to muddy the issue, we should recognize that -- it muddies the issue.

The assumption God is as without merit as is the assumption that some superstitious entity (symbol) has “influence” or “control.”

I supplied examples of typical prayer language. Without doubt, such language is designed to manipulate.

Read and listen to the audio in the following:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

JAK

[_JAK]

I don't know if God intervenes or answers prayers, but someone or something does. Nothing empirical here. Just personal experience.

The question, "Why won't God heal amputees?" probes into a fundamental aspect of prayer and exposes it for observation. This aspect of prayer has to do with ambiguity and coincidence.

Let's look at an example. Let's imagine that you visit your doctor one day, and he tells you that you have cancer. Your doctor is optimistic, and he schedules surgery and chemotherapy to treat your disease. Meanwhile, you are terrified. You don't want to die, so you pray to God day and night for a cure. The surgery is successful, and when your doctor examines you again six months later the cancer is gone. You praise God for answering your prayers. You totally believe with all your heart that God has worked a miracle in your life.

The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy, or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?

When your tumor disappeared, in other words, it might simply have been a complete coincidence that you happened to pray. Your prayer may have had zero effect.

How can we determine whether it is God or coincidence that worked the cure? One way is to eliminate the ambiguity. In a non-ambiguous situation, there is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not.

That is what we are doing when we look at amputees.

That doesn't seem like a comparable analogy to me. In the case of the amputee, you are asking God to replace a part that was removed and the site of the amputation is already healed. The leg isn't sick or diseased. It is partially or fully missing.

In the case of the cancerous tumor, you are asking God to dissolve or reabsorb something. You are asking God to make something "go away".

The more accurate analogy to the cancerous tumor would be if you asked God to remove your leg.

The more accurate analogy to the amputated leg would be if you asked God to put the cancer back.

Sorry, the analogy being used is totally flawed. It's simply an appeal to emotion and not the basis for a rational argument.

Jersey Girl

Here's some more:


* If someone severs their spinal cord in an accident, that person is paralyzed for life. No amount of prayer is going to help.

* If someone is born with a congenital defect like a cleft palate, God will not repair it through prayer. Surgery is the only option.

* A genetic disease like Down Syndrome is the same way -- no amount of prayer is going to fix the problem.

Again, if God can cure cancer, why can't he cure Cerebral palsy, Parkinsons, Atrial Septal defects, Spina bifida, or Alzheimers?

Superstition

fubecabr,

It’s important to keep in mind that superstition is not easily dispensed with. When people want to believe, regardless of how irrational, they find tiny little rationalizations upon which they build an entire house of cards (a belief system irrationally convoluted) to make up that superstition.

Just as the jug of milk (in that illustration) or the horse shoe were demonstrated to have no impact on outcome, neither does religious superstition.

Your final lines appear to assume that which has not been established.

You stated:
Again, if God can cure cancer, why can't he cure Cerebral palsy, Parkinson’s, Atrial Septal defects, Spina bifida, or Alzheimer’s?

I don’t know that you intended to assume God. However, people do that. And then they place layer and layer of claims on top of the assumption. However, a flawed assumption supports none of the claims placed upon a flawed base.

In may discussions I have used the illustration of the survivor. Remember the link to the 10 people with brain cancer. All prayed to be cured. The nine dead people from brain cancer have no story. Only the one survivor can shout: See -- God cured me of brain cancer -- Praise God!.

Those who tend to rely on superstition seize upon that one in ten and likewise claim God did it. Such people are rarely open to reason, scientific evidence, and rational conclusion.

And yet, many such people want all the benefits of medical science without acknowledging it.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

No, JAK.

In your post to harmony (?) you state that manipulate=influence. I posted a dictionary definition of the word manipulate as follows:

manipulate

verb
1. influence or control shrewdly or deviously; "He manipulated public opinion in his favor"
2. hold something in one's hands and move it
3. fake or falsify; "Fudge the figures"; "cook the books"; "falsify the data" [syn: fudge]
4. manipulate in a fraudulent manner; "rig prices" [syn: rig]
5. control (others or oneself) or influence skillfully, usually to one's advantage; "She manipulates her boss"; "She is a very controlling mother and doesn't let her children grow up"; "The teacher knew how to keep the class in line"; "she keeps in line"
6. treat manually, as with massage, for therapeutic purposed

According to the above, to manipulate does not involve simple influence, it is to influence Old Testament control shrewdly or deviously, influence skillfully to one's advantage.

How does prayer effect an attempt to influence or control shrewdly or deviously, or influence God skillfully for one's advantage?

Excepting cases of bargaining, where is the shrewdness, deviousness or skillfull influence of God? Again, I disagree with your use of the word manipulate in relation to prayer.

Jersey Girl

The False Extension

Prayer is an attempt to “influence” or “control.” Whether that is shrewd, devious, or well-intended is irrelevant to the intent to manipulate.

Irrelevant or extended extrapolations are diversionary. While it’s designed to muddy the issue, we should recognize that -- it muddies the issue.

The assumption God is as without merit as is the assumption that some superstitious entity (symbol) has “influence” or “control.”

I supplied examples of typical prayer language. Without doubt, such language is designed to manipulate.

Read and listen to the audio in the following:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

JAK

JAK,

You have not demonstrated that prayer fits the description of to "manipulate" according to a formal definition. If you have definitions to offer that do not indicate that manipulate is an attempt to influence or control without devious intent, I'm willing to consider it.

Jersey Girl

[_Roger Morrison]

Question: Whether manipulaive, devious, sincere or whatever, does "God" respond to the human plea? Seems more important than the semantics in discussion... Roger

[_Trinity]

Question: Whether manipulaive, devious, sincere or whatever, does "God" respond to the human plea? Seems more important than the semantics in discussion... Roger

No, I do not. If there is a god, he is likely a deistic one. The process of prayer is too capricious have divine origin.

[_JAK]

Question: Whether manipulaive, devious, sincere or whatever, does "God" respond to the human plea? Seems more important than the semantics in discussion... Roger

No, I do not. If there is a god, he is likely a deistic one. The process of prayer is too capricious have divine origin.

Trinity,

A good point. Just to add to that, currently, we humans number about 6 billion on the earth -- more than half of which live below poverty level and another third at starvation level. So anyone who leaps to God assumptions has even further dilemmas in attempting to explain the privilege of some humans and the devastating squalor of most other humans as condoned or even controlled by a willful entity.

Throughout human history which follows the emergence of language, there has been a multiplicity of god notions. Wishful thinking and self-elevation have been at the heart of various god[i] speculations from multiple [i]gods to speculations (superstitions) about one God.

Only recently have we come to know genuine knowledge something of the magnitude of the universe with hundreds of billions of stars (suns) and galaxies and the vastness of what the Hubble Telescope now provides transparent information for all to see.

None of the expanded information about what can be seen with telescope and microscope supports religious myths (some of which have long since been entirely discarded).

You are correct regarding the various adjectives or adverbs which some have applied as they have ignored the verb “respond” in your statement. Evidence does not support speculations about supernatural intervention in behalf of or against human pleas which are attempts to move some imagined God force.

JAK

[_JAK]

Question: Whether manipulaive, devious, sincere or whatever, does "God" respond to the human plea? Seems more important than the semantics in discussion... Roger

No credible, transparent, peer reviewed evidence has been established for God claims.

JAK

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl,

Try to understand that the particular intent is irrelevant. People who subscribe to prayer engage in prayer with the intent to manipulate God.

Evaluations of the intent are judgments which could be applied various ways to a specific prayer example. The intent of prayer by individuals or organizations (denominations) is to manipulate some notion of God (or earlier gods) to act in an intervening way.

Why pray?

I gave two brief examples of prayers. In prayer we quickly discover action verbs that are placed following a God word or one which represents what the people praying intend to refer to some supernatural power.

I have demonstrated exactly what you are talking about here. You may not wish to see it, but I have demonstrated it.

What does a mother who has a son in Iraq intend when she prays: “God protect my son from the tragedy of injury or death. God bring him home safely to his family.”? What does she intend?

That is a most common prayer these days in the United States by mothers of sons in Iraq (and others who have relatives at war).

Why are these mothers praying?

They believe or worry that without talking to God telling God to protect their son what?

They believe or worry that without their prayers God may not protect. Their intent is to manipulate God to act, to protect, to intervene in the safety of their son.

As I pointed out previously, your attempt to muddy the issue is beside the point at hand. It’s irrelevant.

We could construct hundreds of prayers here which are realistically representative of what people actually pray.

Look again at the list of verbs in the list I provided as example. They are all attempts to manipulate, to control, to direct the force of their God notion. And they say or write their prayers with the intent to manipulate.

None of your sidetrack adverbs or adjectives are relevant to the intent of prayer.. People who pray want specific action from (their) God. Through words, they attempt to manipulate the action they desire.

Read and listened to:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

JAK

[_JAK]

According to you, asking anyone for help is manipulating. I think you're being too literal in your use of the word.

Incorrect. Your statement is not an accurate representation of my analysis.

My word-construction stated what I intended.

JAK

Your analysis is not an accurate description of prayer.

harmony,

You offer no refutation to the analysis. Get specific. Quote and address with detail what I stated in the context of the entire statement.

Suppose you make up a prayer here, construct it. Write it out word by word. Give it some focus, and we can analyze it.

JAK

[_JAK]

Question: Whether manipulaive, devious, sincere or whatever, does "God" respond to the human plea? Seems more important than the semantics in discussion... Roger

Roger,

Your question here “the human plea” is interesting. There are many human pleas for a very wide variety of things. Clearly, if one conjectures that God does respond, many questions remain:

To which humans?

Are some favored?

Which ones are favored?

On what basis does God discriminate?
(Some have food more than they can possibly use. Others have no food.)
Does God have any responsibility/obligation, or is it merely whim (I like these humans; I don’t like those humans.) The biblical flood story (for example) strongly suggests that God liked very few humans.

Islam (which also claims God does not use the Bible as a basis for God notions. Which God ideas are correct? And, how can the “correct ones” be distinguished from the “incorrect ones”?

I suggest to you there is not “the human plea,” but rather multiple human pleas which are clearly in contradiction.

President Bush is fond of the plea: “God bless America.” That leaves out the vast majority of countries currently on earth. If it applies to Americans, it leaves out a vast majority of non-Americans. The Bush intent is appeal to God to favor America. In so doing, Bush in silence for other countries does not want God to “bless” them.

So the “human plea” is clearly diverse and discordant in its appeal for God’s favor.

I'm sure you have already considered these and other complications.

JAK