What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

2PhiloVoid · Nov 8, 2019

holo said:
Hah, well that's kind of how I feel about my whole (de-)conversion. In my experience, my friend God turned out not to be there (or maybe it's more correct to say that my idea of God didn't stand the test).

What test was that?

Sanoy · Nov 9, 2019

holo said:
Well, given the choice, I'm happy to take the good side. But I'm not sure I follow you here. Should something take me somewhere? Where to?

Yes, that seems to be how the world works. Chemical or electrical reactions in our brains seem to be what, when you look at it physically, produces this or that feeling in our consciousness.

Doesn't it count that it's precious to me? Or, who should it be precious to, to "count"?

I think we can agree that having peace is better than stealing, regardless of why one has peace or steals?

True. I am a product of my time and surroundings. I could've been born into slavery or crime. I didn't create myself, I'm just very fortunate. Realizing that makes everything appear in a different light: how could I condemn anyone for being what they are? It's not like we start out with blank slates and freely choose to be good or evil. Even the bible says so, as far as I can tell: people aren't sinners because they choose to be, but because they're born sinners. Paul laments this in Romans, right? Like "I find I am a slave to sin" etc.

Again, I agree. I make choices all the time, but I don't see how they're free in the sense that I could really have chosen otherwise. I mean, if you can choose freely, why would you ever do something sinful or unwise? You could simply have chosen to always do the right thing. But we don't choose our own desires.

I don't know why we have the ability to (or at least an illusion of) reason, or to be conscious at all. My brain could do its thing, like a machine, and it's a mystery how consciousness comes about and what its purpose may be. We have no awareness of the vast majority of what the brain is doing, all the things it controls, and it seems like things like making choices isn't something consciousness does, it's something it becomes aware of after the fact, or at best, as it happens.

Anyway, your point seems to be that if there's no "higher purpose" then everything is ultimately meaningless. That is, it doesn't mean anything to anyone other than us. But even if you believe in God and feel that his purpose is all that counts, that feeling itself is just your personal concept of meaning, right? I guess you couldn't choose to find meaning in serving God any more than I can choose to find meaning in seeing my son smile. That's just how we are.

(Not sure if I'm making much sense, I should've been in bed a long time ago. Come to think of it, I was in bed a long time ago.)

You can take the good side, but that is really no different than choosing the left side over the Right side of a circle. It just so happens that, unlike the next guy, you have a sensation that occurs when you choose left side.

What is precious to you doesn't count for anything, because there is no number or height to reach. You can like it, but that is all that can be said. Speaking of it as if it is somehow glorious when it is just the left side of circle just speaks to the strength of the chemicals fizing in your brain.

We don't agree that peace is better than stealing. It might be for you, but for others stealing brings them peace and satisfaction.

Sure, there is a lot of mystery to how we work, but why should you have the capability to reason, and if you are determined by natural forces then it doesn't seem that you can reason at all.

If I create a sun and a plant I create something that works together. There is a gestalt in the union. There is efficiency in the union. There is outcome in the union. Alone these things are meaningless, but together they form a Forrest. With a board game, or a video game, a world is created whose internal rules and mechanisms mean something both internally to the world, and to the world outside. Like you suggest, mental aspects are really deep stuff. Meaning is hard to define. But there is one thing that is essential to the examples I just mentioned and that is creation.

holo · Nov 9, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
What test was that?

Basically, "are my experiences of/with God best explained as such, or is it more likely that it's bias, wishful thinking, and tradition?" And "exactly why do I believe the things I do?"

I know there's the idea of not putting God to the test, which I can sympathize with, and the fact that, as the bible says, one fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer. But a very practical test I did was to stop praying and see what happened. I couldn't notice any difference at all in the world. So apparently my prayers didn't influence anything (but myself, which of course may be a good thing). So I had been wrong about all those times I gave God credit for helping me out, because again, there was no perceivable difference in what happened around me.

holo · Nov 9, 2019

Sanoy said:
You can take the good side, but that is really no different than choosing the left side over the Right side of a circle. It just so happens that, unlike the next guy, you have a sensation that occurs when you choose left side.

It's the same in that's there's no fundamental difference in going left or right, but the outcome is obviously different. It makes a difference how I treat people, for example. It doesn't matter in the sense that I'm fulfilling some obligation to God, but it definitely matters to them. I think that's more than good enough.

Sanoy said:
What is precious to you doesn't count for anything, because there is no number or height to reach. You can like it, but that is all that can be said. Speaking of it as if it is somehow glorious when it is just the left side of circle just speaks to the strength of the chemicals fizing in your brain.

But again, that's the case for you too. Being of service to God gives you some sort of satisfaction, or you wouldn't do it.

And again, who should it count to, if not us? I mean, I can see someone suffering, and say, "well it doesn't matter to ME, or it won't matter a billion years from now, so it doesn't matter at all." But we don't, because we know it matters to them, and we care. Do you need a better reason to help people?

Sanoy said:
We don't agree that peace is better than stealing. It might be for you, but for others stealing brings them peace and satisfaction.

True. They're probably poor and/or misguided. People will seek out peace wherever they can find it, and sometimes it's obviously not from a good place, like alcohol or shutting off emotionally.

Sanoy said:
Sure, there is a lot of mystery to how we work, but why should you have the capability to reason, and if you are determined by natural forces then it doesn't seem that you can reason at all.

I don't see why reason couldn't be a product of physical processes. It doesn't need to be something magical. In a deterministic universe, reason is just one of many processes through which things happen.

Sanoy said:
If I create a sun and a plant I create something that works together. There is a gestalt in the union. There is efficiency in the union. There is outcome in the union. Alone these things are meaningless, but together they form a Forrest. With a board game, or a video game, a world is created whose internal rules and mechanisms mean something both internally to the world, and to the world outside. Like you suggest, mental aspects are really deep stuff. Meaning is hard to define. But there is one thing that is essential to the examples I just mentioned and that is creation.

I think in any case, we're locked to whatever gives meaning to us personally. What do you think the meaning of life is?

2PhiloVoid · Nov 9, 2019

holo said:
Basically, "are my experiences of/with God best explained as such, or is it more likely that it's bias, wishful thinking, and tradition?" And "exactly why do I believe the things I do?"

I know there's the idea of not putting God to the test, which I can sympathize with, and the fact that, as the bible says, one fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer. But a very practical test I did was to stop praying and see what happened. I couldn't notice any difference at all in the world. So apparently my prayers didn't influence anything (but myself, which of course may be a good thing). So I had been wrong about all those times I gave God credit for helping me out, because again, there was no perceivable difference in what happened around me.

I was afraid you were going to say that ............... :dontcare:

Here's the thing: what if the typical person these days who reads the Bible, often doing so in English, is told by various fellow Christians that prayer is such and such a thing, but the reality is that it it isn't really that 'kind' of thing? And what's more: what if many of us persist in testing God with prayer because we aren't interpreting the Bible in ways that bring out the original meaning the biblical writers intended to convey? What then becomes of our individual endeavors to "test God with prayer"?

zippy2006 · Nov 9, 2019

holo said:
Well, yes. Corks in the ocean is a great picture. It reminds me of an Alan Watts quote: "You are something the whole universe is doing, in the same way a wave is something the whole ocean is doing." Losing faith in God has allowed me to see the universe and myself in a whole new light - we are indeed one.

St. Thomas says something to the effect, "The soul contains the entire universe." A similar idea is found in Genesis when Adam gives names to the animals. The Christian idea is that man not only corresponds to the universe, he transcends it (and corresponds to God himself, the creator of the universe).

It's easy to see why some people think they are one with the universe, but even someone like Einstein shows us that we surpass the universe in some sense.

holo · Nov 10, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I was afraid you were going to say that ............... Here's the thing: what if the typical person these days who reads the Bible, often doing so in English, is told by various fellow Christians that prayer is such and such a thing, but the reality is that it it isn't really that 'kind' of thing? And what's more: what if many of us persist in testing God with prayer because we aren't interpreting the Bible in ways that bring out the original meaning the biblical writers intended to convey? What then becomes of our individual endeavors to "test God with prayer"?

It may be Christianity has gotten the prayer thing all wrong for the most part. What I was taught about prayer always seemed to be in line with the bible, but it was a full time job getting it to conform with reality. It's not surprising that people get their theology wrong. The thing that fascinates and scares me is how we'll find proof of our faith everywhere we look, even when there clearly is none. I saw God work all the time, he did all kinds of awesome stuff for me. In hindsight, it's clear to me that (in my case at least) I saw what I wanted and expected to see.

What do you think prayer is (for)?

holo · Nov 10, 2019

zippy2006 said:
It's easy to see why some people think they are one with the universe, but even someone like Einstein shows us that we surpass the universe in some sense.

This needs elaboration.

Sanoy · Nov 10, 2019

holo said:
It's the same in that's there's no fundamental difference in going left or right, but the outcome is obviously different. It makes a difference how I treat people, for example. It doesn't matter in the sense that I'm fulfilling some obligation to God, but it definitely matters to them. I think that's more than good enough.

But again, that's the case for you too. Being of service to God gives you some sort of satisfaction, or you wouldn't do it.

And again, who should it count to, if not us? I mean, I can see someone suffering, and say, "well it doesn't matter to ME, or it won't matter a billion years from now, so it doesn't matter at all." But we don't, because we know it matters to them, and we care. Do you need a better reason to help people?

True. They're probably poor and/or misguided. People will seek out peace wherever they can find it, and sometimes it's obviously not from a good place, like alcohol or shutting off emotionally.

I don't see why reason couldn't be a product of physical processes. It doesn't need to be something magical. In a deterministic universe, reason is just one of many processes through which things happen.

I think in any case, we're locked to whatever gives meaning to us personally. What do you think the meaning of life is?

The outcome of choosing the left or the right is no more different than choosing the left or right itself. Whether you steal or give the sensation is all you are doing it for.

What is good refers to God's nature. I would do what is good regardless of whether there was heaven in it for me. You say that we help people because 'we know it matters'. But that knowing is just a sensation in the brain. It's not anything as you imagine, it's just a delusion. You keep moving in and out of this world view here and falling for it's delusion, while at the same time confirming it's a illusion.

How can a person who steals be misguided when there is no where to go? The person who steals and the person who gives are equally guided. Your feeling that they are misguided is just a sensation in your brain that you are doing something better, but that better doesn't refer to anything. The only thing guiding these two is the sensation that occurs in their brain.

Reason could be a product of physical process...but why should it? And how could something that is determined to come to a conclusion, rationally come to a conclusion?

zippy2006 · Nov 10, 2019

holo said:
This needs elaboration.

Supposing Einstein identified and described certain fundamental laws of the universe itself, his being could not have been simply co-extensive with the universe. In that way we see that Einstein's mind was more than the universe, rather than one with the universe. Perhaps that helps get at what I was trying to say.

yeshuaslavejeff · Nov 10, 2019

?

BigV said:
If this life is all there is, and you followed a Christian lifestyle, what would be your loss if this life is the only existence we have?

?
Can you exist somewhere else this year ? I think this is the only existence you have/ we have. Here, today.

There is no loss in realizing that.

In fact, it is very important, as it is true, right ? (we cannot escape to some other existence as far as I know.... we must live here today, somewhere on earth(or in space ship)

If we die, (when we die), everything changes at that point, for most people if not everyone.

holo · Nov 10, 2019

Sanoy said:
The outcome of choosing the left or the right is no more different than choosing the left or right itself. Whether you steal or give the sensation is all you are doing it for.

Yes. All we do is dictated by sensations, as you put it. Even the feeling of knowing what is true, is just a sensation, an appearance in your consciousness.

Sanoy said:
What is good refers to God's nature. I would do what is good regardless of whether there was heaven in it for me. You say that we help people because 'we know it matters'. But that knowing is just a sensation in the brain. It's not anything as you imagine, it's just a delusion. You keep moving in and out of this world view here and falling for it's delusion, while at the same time confirming it's a illusion.

But how would this be any different for a Christian? Your brain probably works the same way mine does.

Sanoy said:
How can a person who steals be misguided when there is no where to go?

Because we can pretty reliably say that it's better to be kind than to steal. When we treat others badly, it's usually because we lack knowledge. The more you know about another person, the more you'll realise that he's the same as you, with all the emotions and needs and rights etc that entails.

Sanoy said:
The person who steals and the person who gives are equally guided. Your feeling that they are misguided is just a sensation in your brain that you are doing something better, but that better doesn't refer to anything. The only thing guiding these two is the sensation that occurs in their brain.

Yes, but the sensations in their brains didn't come from nowhere. They have causes. If we examine the causes they quickly become far too intricate for us to really know, because everything is interconnected. Upbringing, society, hormones, movies, you name it. It all shapes who we are and what we do.

You may rightly claim that unless God put down the rules, there's no objective standard of morality. That may be true, but that doesn't mean I must believe in God to have morality. I couldn't get rid of my morality if I tried. There's no escaping it, and it doesn't depend on believing in God. So morality is one thing you would certainly not lose if Christianity turns out not to be true.

Sanoy said:
Reason could be a product of physical process...but why should it? And how could something that is determined to come to a conclusion, rationally come to a conclusion?

I wish I knew

Consciousness is probably the greatest mystery there is, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's fundamentally impossible to figure out exactly what it is and what it's for. There's the idea of panpsychism, which sounds like mumbo jumbo but may actually turn out to be true. It says that consciousness is a fundamental quality of matter, like charge and spin. It would mean that the tiniest particle has some sort of consciousness, though probably nothing like the human mind - no memory or emotion or sense of self, but still some extremely basic form of awareness. I know, it sounds mumbo jumbo, but if you think it's interesting, look up the philosopher David Chalmers.

But I guess you would think that consciousness itself is a good argument for God, and I think I agree with that (it could point toward some deity or "purpose", but not Jahve in particular).

Silmarien · Nov 10, 2019

holo said:
Well, yes. Corks in the ocean is a great picture. It reminds me of an Alan Watts quote: "You are something the whole universe is doing, in the same way a wave is something the whole ocean is doing." Losing faith in God has allowed me to see the universe and myself in a whole new light - we are indeed one. I wasn't "put here" by something external to the universe or our reality, instead I am a product of it, as much a part of it as you, my rabbits, black holes, oceans and flowers. A slave? Yes, in a sense - I didn't choose to exist, nobody else chose that I exist. Yet here I am, and I think it's absolutely... I want to say miraculous.

But I realize don't have to exclude God to feel like one with the universe and so forth. But I don't think I could've gotten to see reality in this way unless I'd lost my Christian faith. Maybe I'll believe again some day, but with a pretty different concept of God (even as a believer, I was very aware that any human's idea of God would by definition be limited).

I've been meaning to reply to this for a while, since the sort of almost mystical intuitions you've mentioned here can easily build a path straight to theism.

Are you at all familiar with the apophatic tradition? Recognizing that humanity's ideas of God would have to be almost by definition limited really ties in nicely with negative theology in general, so if you are not familiar with the ways in which some of these issues are tackled within theology worldwide, that is really a shame.

One book I would recommend, if you haven't read it yet, is David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God. He himself is Eastern Orthodox, but the book itself is much more universal than that, and almost more based on a Hindu understanding of religious experience than a Christian one. It's a great place to go to for a somewhat mystical exploration of the mystery of existence and of the mind.

holo said:
You may rightly claim that unless God put down the rules, there's no objective standard of morality. That may be true, but that doesn't mean I must believe in God to have morality. I couldn't get rid of my morality if I tried. There's no escaping it, and it doesn't depend on believing in God. So morality is one thing you would certainly not lose if Christianity turns out not to be true.

That depends on what one means by the term "morality," since while some sort of code of behavior is universal, the humanistic values of Western society are certainly not. Our concern with marginalized people really does come directly from Christian revelation, so if the foundation is false, then a Nietzschean style attack could easily tear down the whole house of cards.

This actually may be happening with the rise of the secular far right. I wouldn't say they have no morality, but it's a shamelessly aristocratic one based on concern for the in-group alone. This type of phenomenon should not be overlooked when making the claim that values have nothing to do with Christianity. (Not that there isn't scary stuff going on with the Christian far right also, but they at least are not tossing down the gauntlet and challenging the very concept of humanitarianism.)

holo · Nov 11, 2019

Silmarien said:
Are you at all familiar with the apophatic tradition? Recognizing that humanity's ideas of God would have to be almost by definition limited really ties in nicely with negative theology in general, so if you are not familiar with the ways in which some of these issues are tackled within theology worldwide, that is really a shame.

I only have a very basic knowledge of that tradition, but I would agree with the premise that any definition of God is at the same time a limitation.

Silmarien said:
That depends on what one means by the term "morality," since while some sort of code of behavior is universal, the humanistic values of Western society are certainly not. Our concern with marginalized people really does come directly from Christian revelation, so if the foundation is false, then a Nietzschean style attack could easily tear down the whole house of cards.

This actually may be happening with the rise of the secular far right. I wouldn't say they have no morality, but it's a shamelessly aristocratic one based on concern for the in-group alone. This type of phenomenon should not be overlooked when making the claim that values have nothing to do with Christianity. (Not that there isn't scary stuff going on with the Christian far right also, but they at least are not tossing down the gauntlet and challenging the very concept of humanitarianism.)

I guess I shouldn't make too many claims about the world's morals without citing sources, but it's not my impression that things like abolishing slavery is a particular "Christian" thing. Sure, there are many who've grounded their social work etc. in their Christian faith, but at the same time people have tried to uphold racism in the name of Christianity. It may be a no true Scotsman thing, but it seems to me that the faith isn't so much the origin of compassion, but more the vehicle of it. That said, some religions are obviously better vehicles than others.

holo · Nov 11, 2019

zippy2006 said:
Supposing Einstein identified and described certain fundamental laws of the universe itself, his being could not have been simply co-extensive with the universe. In that way we see that Einstein's mind was more than the universe, rather than one with the universe. Perhaps that helps get at what I was trying to say.

If I understand you right, you're saying that if Einstein could say something fundamentally true about the universe, that would be proof that his mind couldn't be the product of that same universe.

zippy2006 · Nov 11, 2019

holo said:
If I understand you right, you're saying that if Einstein could say something fundamentally true about the universe, that would be proof that his mind couldn't be the product of that same universe.

Yes, I think so, particularly because Einstein's thought was an example of a description of the universe itself, rather than just relations within the universe. That is to say that Einstein made the entire universe the object of his mind, and did so successfully.

Silmarien · Nov 11, 2019

holo said:
I guess I shouldn't make too many claims about the world's morals without citing sources, but it's not my impression that things like abolishing slavery is a particular "Christian" thing. Sure, there are many who've grounded their social work etc. in their Christian faith, but at the same time people have tried to uphold racism in the name of Christianity. It may be a no true Scotsman thing, but it seems to me that the faith isn't so much the origin of compassion, but more the vehicle of it. That said, some religions are obviously better vehicles than others.

I would argue that abolishing slavery is very much a Christian thing. If you look at the history of abolitionism, you'll find figures like St. Gregory of Nyssa who were staunchly opposed to slavery because of Christianity even in the 4th century, when the majority of theologians considered it a necessary evil. Even considering it a necessary evil is a step up from considering it a normal and morally unproblematic practice, which was largely the case beforehand. The key here is not what happened in the United States in the 19th century (though Christianity was a driving force then too), but what happened in Rome in the 4th century.

I don't think you can separate the intellectual tradition of the West from Christianity. If major figures like St. Augustine hadn't claimed that slavery was the result of sin and against God's design, would the idea that slavery was morally wrong have ended up so deeply imbedded in the Western consciousness? I don't see any reason to think that it would have if the majority of societies historically have seen no need to condemn it outright.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 12, 2019

holo said:
It may be Christianity has gotten the prayer thing all wrong for the most part. What I was taught about prayer always seemed to be in line with the bible, but it was a full time job getting it to conform with reality. It's not surprising that people get their theology wrong. The thing that fascinates and scares me is how we'll find proof of our faith everywhere we look, even when there clearly is none. I saw God work all the time, he did all kinds of awesome stuff for me. In hindsight, it's clear to me that (in my case at least) I saw what I wanted and expected to see.

What do you think prayer is (for)?

What do I think prayer is for? Good question! To some extent, I can understand the usual misgivings that a lot of people have had over this topic since, let's face it, prayer often doesn't work, or at least what we think should 'pass' as prayer often doesn't work.

On the other hand and in following the lead of W. Bingham Hunter (1986) on his thoughts on the subject, I'm going to have to say that there isn't just one kind of prayer and that what we often refer to as 'our' prayer doesn't comport very much with the purposes of the kind of prayer that Jesus taught His disciples to pray. Hence, I think it's not too much to do if I stress the fact that where prayer is concerned, most of us in today's modern, materialist, at times highly Capitalist world have failed to concentrate on what we find in Matthew chapter 6 and instead have hyper-focused upon the ways in which we try to commingle, or even force-fit, our own desires into the four or five strata of the "proper" purpose and form of prayer which we see Jesus give us as it pertains to our own, individual selves.

In other words, I might like listening to Metallica's song, "The God who failed" as much as some others, but philosophically and spiritually speaking, the ways in which God has failed in relation to prayer might need to be heavily questioned, along with both the consternation expressed by many skeptics over this very subject and the sometimes bogus applications of prayer that some Christians try to pander to and pawn off on folks everywhere around them. The bottom line is: somewhere in the mix, we often just don't like the fact that though God hears us, He (Jesus) has also affirmed the "future looking" fact that we will all face tough troubles in this life that He hasn't, doesn't, and won't alleviate by bits and pieces of prayer.

No. Prayer is mainly for something a little different than meeting the claimed 'felt-needs' of the Modern, materialist, even capitalist dream (or the Communist dream for that matter).

Reference
Hunter, W. Bingham (1986). The God who hears. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

Sanoy · Nov 12, 2019

holo said:
Yes. All we do is dictated by sensations, as you put it. Even the feeling of knowing what is true, is just a sensation, an appearance in your consciousness.

But how would this be any different for a Christian? Your brain probably works the same way mine does.

Because we can pretty reliably say that it's better to be kind than to steal. When we treat others badly, it's usually because we lack knowledge. The more you know about another person, the more you'll realise that he's the same as you, with all the emotions and needs and rights etc that entails.

Yes, but the sensations in their brains didn't come from nowhere. They have causes. If we examine the causes they quickly become far too intricate for us to really know, because everything is interconnected. Upbringing, society, hormones, movies, you name it. It all shapes who we are and what we do.

You may rightly claim that unless God put down the rules, there's no objective standard of morality. That may be true, but that doesn't mean I must believe in God to have morality. I couldn't get rid of my morality if I tried. There's no escaping it, and it doesn't depend on believing in God. So morality is one thing you would certainly not lose if Christianity turns out not to be true.

I wish I knew

Consciousness is probably the greatest mystery there is, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's fundamentally impossible to figure out exactly what it is and what it's for. There's the idea of panpsychism, which sounds like mumbo jumbo but may actually turn out to be true. It says that consciousness is a fundamental quality of matter, like charge and spin. It would mean that the tiniest particle has some sort of consciousness, though probably nothing like the human mind - no memory or emotion or sense of self, but still some extremely basic form of awareness. I know, it sounds mumbo jumbo, but if you think it's interesting, look up the philosopher David Chalmers.

But I guess you would think that consciousness itself is a good argument for God, and I think I agree with that (it could point toward some deity or "purpose", but not Jahve in particular).

It's different with Christianity because God created all that there is including our moral and intellectual faculties. So if He exists, then the orientation provided by our intellectual and moral faculties points to what they should point to. Calculators point toward mathematical truths because we designed them to do that. If they were not designed we would not expect them to point to mathematical truths.

Giving and stealing are equal. You say we can reliably say that one is better than the other but that is just a sensation that tells you that, just as the thief has a sensation telling him stealing is better than giving. You are falling back into that illusion again. You say we don't need God for morality, but you don't mean what we mean by morality. If we say that morality is whatever our moral faculties point to then yes we can both be moral. But that is comparing the color of earth with an alien planet. In Christianity our moral faculties point externally toward God's nature as a universal standard. In your case your moral faculties point to a meaningless chemical reaction in your particular brain. That is all it is.

Panpsychism is the multiverse answer to consciousness. It doesn't answer anything, it just moves the question back a step so we can walk forward a step to claim progress. Nothing about it suggests we should have valid reasoning. So if you do believe you have the intellectual faculties to reason and discover the truth you should be searching for something that would make that likely, not just possible (calculator). The only thing which would make it likely that our intellectual and moral faculties point toward something we should follow is if they are created for the purpose of pointing toward that.

cloudyday2 · Nov 12, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
What do I think prayer is for? Good question! To some extent, I can understand the usual misgivings that a lot of people have had over this topic since, let's face it, prayer often doesn't work, or at least what we think should 'pass' as prayer often doesn't work.

One idea for the purpose of prayer that I have considered is to align the will of the believer with God. In other words, God is going to do his own will regardless, but the believer expresses his/her will to God in prayer, and then the believer gets some idea where his/her own will is out of alignment with God's will. ("Some idea", because the believer does not have omniscience. Maybe the difference between the will of the believer and the will of God is due to missing information rather than imperfect desires.)

What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

former Christian

former Christian

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Dragonsworn

former Christian

former Christian

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

former Christian

Existentialist

former Christian

former Christian

Dragonsworn

Existentialist

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Similar threads