Why Pray?

[razeontherock]

Why would someone pray that God do what he has already decided to do? Isn't that a waste of time?

Why?

1) This is the example Jesus gives us. THIS ALONE is more than enough to tell us your conclusion is wrong.

2) This is primarily about US doing His will - as clearly Jesus demonstrates.

3) He gave US dominion. It isn't about G-d "doing" anything. (You should really focus on understanding this principle, since it affects everything else.)

 

[elopez]

for the ump-teenth time; PLEASE IGNORE THE ANALOGY!!!! I have already told you the analogy had it's flaws! Why are you still bringing it up? The analogy may be flawed but the question stands on it's own. Can you answer the question please?

Okay, if you wanted to ignore the analogy then why did you ask what the difference of it and prayer was?? I brought it up because you asked about it....

And for like the fifth time now, I have already answered the question. It's not my fault you have issues paying attention.

 

[Ken-1122]

It doesn't contradict God's omniscience at all. I think I said this from the start, but the purpose of prayer isn't to tell God anything new. God knows our needs, yet he tells us to ask him for them. Again, this is a relationship with the Lord, not a one-sided deal.

My point is, in order for God to be omniscient, (know everything) the future must have already been decided; otherwise God doesn’t know the future.

If God changes the future to please someone praying, that would mean he was not omniscient before the prayer took place.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Why?

1) This is the example Jesus gives us. THIS ALONE is more than enough to tell us your conclusion is wrong.

2) This is primarily about US doing His will - as clearly Jesus demonstrates.

The prayer Jesus gave was not about asking God to do things for us; I wasn’t talking about prayers like the one Jesus in “the lords prayer”

3) He gave US dominion. It isn't about G-d "doing" anything. (You should really focus on understanding this principle, since it affects everything else.)

The reason I have problems focusing on that issue is because that is your opinion. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are plenty of people praying for God to do things; not the other way around; that’s the type of praying I’m talking about.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay, if you wanted to ignore the analogy then why did you ask what the difference of it and prayer was?? I brought it up because you asked about it....

That was a totally different analogy. The first analogy was the person asking was aware you were going to eat the Hamburger, you pointed out it was flawed because we don‘t know what God is going to do. I said ignore that one. The second one was the person was unaware if you were going to eat it, and that one you didn’t respond to.

And for like the fifth time now, I have already answered the question. It's not my fault you have issues paying attention.

You haven''t answered my question, all you said was the analogy that I told you to forget was flawed thus my point was flawed. That doesn't answer the question unless you explain exactly why the point was flawed

K

 

[Hakan101]

My point is, in order for God to be omniscient, (know everything) the future must have already been decided; otherwise God doesn’t know the future.

If God changes the future to please someone praying, that would mean he was not omniscient before the prayer took place.

K

God knows the future, we don't. He still tells us to pray to him. Whether you want to admit it or not, prayer is not a waste of time. If you think prayer is ever, only about giving God a wishlist, you are missing the purpose.

 

[Zbigge1031]

My point is, in order for God to be omniscient, (know everything) the future must have already been decided; otherwise God doesn’t know the future.

If God changes the future to please someone praying, that would mean he was not omniscient before the prayer took place.

K

The future has been decided. But it still hasn't happened yet, and God knows our every choice, even if we will pray, and incorporates those into His plan. We humans tend to think of what happens if we choose choice A vs choice B. The problem is that these two futures never really exist. God already knows which option you will pick in any given situation. There really isn't a situation of a person to choosing to do pray and God changing His mind to answer the prayer. Rather, He already knew whether you were going to pray and whether He was going to intervene. Though you physically have the options of pray or not pray, He already knows which one you will do, and has already planned His response. Thus, there can be no, "what if I chose option B instead?"

 

[Ken-1122]

God knows the future, we don't. He still tells us to pray to him. Whether you want to admit it or not, prayer is not a waste of time. If you think prayer is ever, only about giving God a wishlist, you are missing the purpose.

As I've said time and time again, I am talking about the type of prayers when someone gives God a "wishlist" (as you call it) I realize there are other prayers, but I am not talking about those; only the ones where they ask God for stuff.

Ken

 

[elopez]

That was a totally different analogy. The first analogy was the person asking was aware you were going to eat the Hamburger, you pointed out it was flawed because we don‘t know what God is going to do. I said ignore that one. The second one was the person was unaware if you were going to eat it, and that one you didn’t respond to.

Okay well you did not admit your first analogy was flawed until just recently, otherwise you were just saying ignore the analogy without why.

Yes, I have answered this question. You can even look back on post 47 at my very last response. That was not the only time I repeated that, either. Even then if you actually think about your analogy it is still false. If you are unaware of what I'm going to eat, and you ask me what I'm going to eat, then it is not a waste of time at all as you have no knowledge of what I'm going to eat. Curiosity would subdue on your behalf as the lack of knowledge.

You haven''t answered my question, all you said was the analogy that I told you to forget was flawed thus my point was flawed. That doesn't answer the question unless you explain exactly why the point was flawed.

I have answered it and I just did above.

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay well you did not admit your first analogy was flawed until just recently, otherwise you were just saying ignore the analogy without why.

That's because I personally don't believe the analogy was flawed, I just said it was to get you away from focusing on the analogy and onto addressing the point I made. A flawed analogy does not make a flawed question, the question stands on it's own; a flawed analogy simply means it doesn't help you understand the point being made, or the question being asked.

Yes, I have answered this question. You can even look back on post 47 at my very last response.

I went back to post 47 and this is what I found:

Again, if praying they will be done in regards to God means we ask Him what He already intends to do, we do not know what God is going to do and what He isn't going to do. We are not aware of what God is going to do. So, it's not a waste of time. One last time, your analogy is incomparable to God and prayer thus your question is invalid.

The problem with your answer is you keep focusing on whether or not we know what God is going to do. That doesn't matter! It is still a waste of time to ask someone to do whatever it is that they want to do, because if you remain silent, your wish will be granted. IMO the attempt to focus on what a person knows or not is a distraction

That was not the only time I repeated that, either. Even then if you actually think about your analogy it is still false. If you are unaware of what I'm going to eat,

The analogy doesn't mention that you are about to eat anything; where did you get that idea?

and you ask me what I'm going to eat,

The analogy said nothing about me asking what you are going to eat! Where did that come from?

then it is not a waste of time at all as you have no knowledge of what I'm going to eat

Curiosity would subdue on your behalf as the lack of knowledge.


I have answered it and I just did above.

Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote because you appear to have misread what I wrote; perhaps you will see my analogy actually makes sense.

K

 

[elopez]

That's because I personally don't believe the analogy was flawed, I just said it was to get you away from focusing on the analogy and onto addressing the point I made. A flawed analogy does not make a flawed question, the question stands on it's own; a flawed analogy simply means it doesn't help you understand the point being made, or the question being asked.

So you basically admit now that you were acting totally beguiling to prove a point? I'm sorry but being dishonest and claiming it was to get me to do something doesn't sound very convincing; either you really do recognize the analogy as being flawed or you're being intellectually dishonest. Since I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt I would prefer to think the former, but since you claim it is the latter my point still stands against your original analogy that you have failed to address: your original analogy assumes we know what the other person is going to do, that is incomparable to God and prayer as we have no knowledge at all what God is going to do. If you really think there is nothing wrong with your original analogy then you wouldn't have wasted all this time admitting there was when this whole time you could have expressed why.

I went back to post 47 and this is what I found:

Again, if praying they will be done in regards to God means we ask Him what He already intends to do, we do not know what God is going to do and what He isn't going to do. We are not aware of what God is going to do. So, it's not a waste of time. One last time, your analogy is incomparable to God and prayer thus your question is invalid.

The problem with your answer is you keep focusing on whether or not we know what God is going to do. That doesn't matter! It is still a waste of time to ask someone to do whatever it is that they want to do, because if you remain silent, your wish will be granted. IMO the attempt to focus on what a person knows or not is a distraction

If we are referring to your original analogy, which actually does assume we know what God is going to do as that is exactly what your analogy compares it to, then it does matter. I disagree with your point of view because if we have knowledge of someone doing something, and ask them to do it, we would be wasting our time as we already have knowledge they are going to do it. That means if we are ignorant of what is going to happen, and we ask what is going to happen, then it's not a waste of time. Tell me, how does that not make sense???

The analogy doesn't mention that you are about to eat anything; where did you get that idea?

Oh gee, how about when you said, "So how is 'eat the hamburger if it is your will' different than "heal this man of cancer if it is you will" in the context that you are asking someone to do what they have already decided to do?"

You said it right there...

The analogy said nothing about me asking what you are going to eat! Where did that come from?

Again, your second analogy implied just that. Look above but if you cannot even remember your own words I am wasting my breathe...

Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote because you appear to have misread what I wrote; perhaps you will see my analogy actually makes sense.

Neither of your analogy is comparable to God and prayer. You might think they are, but you're sorely mistaken for the reasons stated.

 

[Ken-1122]

So you basically admit now that you were acting totally beguiling to prove a point? I'm sorry but being dishonest and claiming it was to get me to do something doesn't sound very convincing; either you really do recognize the analogy as being flawed or you're being intellectually dishonest.

As mentioned before, the only pourpose of the analogy is to help you understand the point. I personally believe the analogy helps understand the point, perhaps you feel otherwise.

If we are referring to your original analogy, which actually does assume we know what God is going to do as that is exactly what your analogy compares it to, then it does matter.

But we are not referring to the origional analogy; it obviously isn;t working for you so we are going to address the point! "Asking someone to do whatever it is that they are going to do is a waste oftime becasuse if you remain silent they will do it anyway." Care to address that?

Oh gee, how about when you said, "

So how is 'eat the hamburger if it is your will' different than "heal this man of cancer if it is you will" in the context that you are asking someone to do what they have already decided to do?"

It doesn't mention your intent to eat the hamburger anymore than it mention the intent of healing the man of cancer or anything else. It simply says if it is your will, do it.

You said it right there...

Again, your second analogy implied just that. Look above but if you cannot even remember your own words I am wasting my breathe...

Would you mind providing a quote?

Neither of your analogy is comparable to God and prayer. You might think they are, but you're sorely mistaken for the reasons stated.

Care to answer my question? In case you forgot here it is:
"Asking someone to do whatever it is that they are going to do is a waste of time becasue if you remain silent they will do it anyway"
Care to address that?

K

 

[Zbigge1031]

Ok. I've been following this for a while, and I think I understand what you are getting at. I also think I might be able to answer you question in a better way. Correct me if I am misunderstanding anything.

Let's begin with Tom. Tom's mom has cancer. Tom prays that her cancer is cured, if God wills it (His will be done). You seem to be saying that this prayer is a waste because either A) if God's will be done, then the same thing would happen even if Tom was silent, or B) by answering prayers such as this, God changes the future and thus surrenders His omniscience.

I do understand how asking someone to do something that they are already going to do can seem like a waste. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the percieved end result of prayer, rather than its process and secondary effects. If I ask you for something you were going to give me anyways, my asking is a waste. But if my same asking makes you feel more appreciated, or improves our relationship, is it still such a waste, even if the same result (me gettting something) is achieved? This is my response for A)

I do have one more problem with A) though. There isn't any way to know whether the result would be the same at the end or not. We don't exactly have a way of going back and testing that theory. And if God's will was really that simple, would anyone have cancer? Would anything bad happen, for that matter? So it seems to me that His will is more complex than that.

B) appears to rely on the existence of the multiverse. By that I mean, that for every possibly choice, there is a possible world where that choice was made. If, however, God knew before creating the universe what every possible choice was, and also what the end result of said choices were, and then only actualized one of these many worlds, this argument falls apart. It means that God already knew that Tom was going to pray, what he was going to pray for, His own reaction, and every event which would continue to happen afterwards til the end of time. He maintains His omniscience.

Please inform me if I am incorrect on my understanding of anything. I will happily work with you until we can come to a satisfactory answer.

 

[elopez]

As mentioned before, the only purpose of the analogy is to help you understand the point. I personally believe the analogy helps understand the point, perhaps you feel otherwise.

I do feel otherwise. I feel as if the analogy is incomparable to God and prayer, and as such the analogy is flawed. I also feel that you have been, as I said before, intellectually dishonest in our conversation. You previously admitted that your original analogy was flawed, then you said it wasn't. Again, if you thought it wasn't flawed you would have refuted why I said it was instead of conceding it was.

But we are not referring to the origional analogy; it obviously isn;t working for you so we are going to address the point! "Asking someone to do whatever it is that they are going to do is a waste oftime becasuse if you remain silent they will do it anyway." Care to address that?

I have addressed this. It really amazes me how much you are neglecting my answer. Yet again, just for your own sake, if we are saying we don't have knowledge of what the other person is going to do, then it is not a waste of time. Do you understand my reply?

It doesn't mention your intent to eat the hamburger anymore than it mention the intent of healing the man of cancer or anything else. It simply says if it is your will, do it.

And I didn't say anything about intent. You mentioned that the second analogy didn't refer to eating anything, remember? All I pointed out is that you did mention that, and that you obviously have issues remembering your own argument.

Would you mind providing a quote?

Again, your second analogy was similar to the first you just changed it. You asked, "So how is 'eat the hamburger if it is your will' different than 'heal this man of cancer if it is you will' in the context that you are asking someone to do what they have already decided to do?" You know the only reason you seem to think I am having so much trouble understanding your analogy (when I'm clearly not) is because you are being so vague and unclear as to it.

Care to answer my question? In case you forgot here it is: "Asking someone to do whatever it is that they are going to do is a waste of time becasue if you remain silent they will do it anyway"
Care to address that?

For the last time, I have answered this question. I don't understand why you refuse to accept that I have answered it. Here it is again for about the seventh time now: If we do not know what the person is going to do, which you said we wouldn't know, then no, it is not a waste of time.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok. I've been following this for a while, and I think I understand what you are getting at. I also think I might be able to answer you question in a better way. Correct me if I am misunderstanding anything.

Let's begin with Tom. Tom's mom has cancer. Tom prays that her cancer is cured, if God wills it (His will be done). You seem to be saying that this prayer is a waste because either A) if God's will be done, then the same thing would happen even if Tom was silent, or B) by answering prayers such as this, God changes the future and thus surrenders His omniscience.

I do understand how asking someone to do something that they are already going to do can seem like a waste. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the percieved end result of prayer, rather than its process and secondary effects. If I ask you for something you were going to give me anyways, my asking is a waste. But if my same asking makes you feel more appreciated, or improves our relationship, is it still such a waste, even if the same result (me gettting something) is achieved? This is my response for A)

I do have one more problem with A) though. There isn't any way to know whether the result would be the same at the end or not. We don't exactly have a way of going back and testing that theory. And if God's will was really that simple, would anyone have cancer? Would anything bad happen, for that matter? So it seems to me that His will is more complex than that.

B) appears to rely on the existence of the multiverse. By that I mean, that for every possibly choice, there is a possible world where that choice was made. If, however, God knew before creating the universe what every possible choice was, and also what the end result of said choices were, and then only actualized one of these many worlds, this argument falls apart. It means that God already knew that Tom was going to pray, what he was going to pray for, His own reaction, and every event which would continue to happen afterwards til the end of time. He maintains His omniscience.

Please inform me if I am incorrect on my understanding of anything. I will happily work with you until we can come to a satisfactory answer.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying God's ominiscience means he has known every possible reaction to every action ever made, so if Tom has Cancer, he will have known you would pray for him and he would react by healing him. If you say "why pray his fate has already been decided, God would have known your action of not praying and may not react by healing him.
If this is your point it definitely makes sense to me. Thanks for your perspective.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I do feel otherwise. I feel as if the analogy is incomparable to God and prayer, and as such the analogy is flawed. I also feel that you have been, as I said before, intellectually dishonest in our conversation. You previously admitted that your original analogy was flawed, then you said it wasn't. Again, if you thought it wasn't flawed you would have refuted why I said it was instead of conceding it was.


I have addressed this. It really amazes me how much you are neglecting my answer. Yet again, just for your own sake, if we are saying we don't have knowledge of what the other person is going to do, then it is not a waste of time. Do you understand my reply?


And I didn't say anything about intent. You mentioned that the second analogy didn't refer to eating anything, remember? All I pointed out is that you did mention that, and that you obviously have issues remembering your own argument.


Again, your second analogy was similar to the first you just changed it. You asked, "So how is 'eat the hamburger if it is your will' different than 'heal this man of cancer if it is you will' in the context that you are asking someone to do what they have already decided to do?" You know the only reason you seem to think I am having so much trouble understanding your analogy (when I'm clearly not) is because you are being so vague and unclear as to it.


For the last time, I have answered this question. I don't understand why you refuse to accept that I have answered it. Here it is again for about the seventh time now: If we do not know what the person is going to do, which you said we wouldn't know, then no, it is not a waste of time.

Maybe we can just agree to disagree on this one, besides, "zbigge1031" has explained it to me in a way that makes sence to me. I guess we just weren't understanding each other. Thanks for trying to explain it to me

Ken