The Redundancy of Prayer

[SnakeLord]

This seems to me the crucial assertion in your OP.

It is based upon the somewhat typical response given when asked the first question or the second statements are mentioned. It was not to suggest that everyone on the planet would give such an answer but it does certainly seem to be a consistent one.

However, yes - it is crucial because the very post is about the inevitable consequences if someone asserts 'gods will' as an answer.

Requests in mundane social relationships can have this character also. Think of the kinds of discussions, including begging

I'm under the impression, given your praragraph before this statement, that you mean something like: The beggar asks for money, you say no, he then pleads with you which causes you to change your mind and give him money after all?

If so I would submit that this comes under the 'sincerity' factor. I'd be ok with that, as explained on my earlier post, and it would certainly save the resulting consequence of prayer being redundant. It would also confirm the quoted biblical statements.

My final statement would be to merely ask if someone could for once actually be serious when praying for all those children in Great Ormond Street Hospital, (eg).

 

[wise acre]

It is based upon the somewhat typical response given when asked the first question or the second statements are mentioned. It was not to suggest that everyone on the planet would give such an answer but it does certainly seem to be a consistent one.

Sounds very weakly empirical.

I'm under the impression, given your praragraph before this statement, that you mean something like: The beggar asks for money, you say no, he then pleads with you which causes you to change your mind and give him money after all?

If so I would submit that this comes under the 'sincerity' factor. I'd be ok with that, as explained on my earlier post, and it would certainly save the resulting consequence of prayer being redundant. It would also confirm the quoted biblical statements.

Sincerity would be one possible criterion. Of course, most people want, sincerely, to live, when that is what they are praying for. So a very broad sense of sincerity, not just related to the request. Also that in the process of the prayer a change takes place. Part of an ongoing relationship.

The spouse I posited in my adultery example may want to see changes/qualities other than sincerity: understanding (about why it was wrong or the effect), that the adulterer has self-knowledge about the act and not simply regret about the effects, some sort of plan, willingness to make certain changes, and so on.

My final statement would be to merely ask if someone could for once actually be serious when praying for all those children in Great Ormond Street Hospital, (eg).

This point is askew the one I was responding to. Though I share your disdain for any notions of these children or their parent's deserving what happens or being open to judgment of failure to pray with sincerity.

 

[SnakeLord]

Sounds very weakly empirical

Again it should be noted that the post is specifically aimed at those that provide the 'gods will' excuse and the inevitable consequences of such an excuse. I did mention that on my last post - well, I think so anyway.

The spouse I posited in my adultery example may want to see changes/qualities other than sincerity: understanding (about why it was wrong or the effect)..,

This is an argument for sincerity, (although you can use various other words that equate to the same thing): Your prayer is answered as long as you act in a certain manner. I have little quarrel with that - as expressed a few times, (although that is victim of certain specific issues of its own).

 

[swarm]

God's will

While not a godder myself, I do feel you are being overly binary here.

It could be that god is saying "ask and you shall receive" because its "his will" to answer a particular set of prayers if and only if the effort is made by some one, presumably faithful, who asks. As long of course, as it doesn't interfere with his set will in matters he isn't opened to change.

For example, if my son asks for a Popsicle he can have it if certain conditions are valid - being good recently, etc. - and it is not too close to the next meal and we have some and it has been a reasonable interval since the last one.

So if he asks there is a range of possible answers depending on his "state of grace" and the context - from no, to later, to if you do thus, to yes.

The problem with this of course is when my example is applied disingenuously to a fantasy concerning wish fulfillment. Because of the range of answers and possible delay, it is possible to pretend "god" exists, but you just aren't good enough, or haven't waited enough, or its just "no" a lot of the time.

Some examination of the scenarios soon highlights key differences. I am in direct communication with my son. I don't need "priests" to make excuses. If I say "no," I actually say it to him and he knows why. Also I do say "yes" reasonably often and its not some vague, you got to do a lot of squinting to make it fit "yes" either. He actually gets the Popsicle. He doesn't have to wait for winter and then break off an icicle and pretend it is a "yes."

 

[(Q)]

Ah, I love Kubrick. Of course he primarily tore new assholes in secular institutions.

Like, with the film, "2001"?