On prayer

[FinalEnigma]

This thread was spawned by a discussion here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 574#222574

Hi Final, Good to hear from you friend. I would say a couple of things about praying. Some things take a long time. Other's are right away. Not only is the act of praying an art of becoming completly sincere. The act of receiving the answer is an art of becoming receptive and intuitive to the many ways an answer may reach you. You may have heard this many times Final. But it is something that takes a while to distinguish.

Actually, despite talking to pastors and such, I've never been told that.

I also think that sometimes the involvement of someone else helps for some reason. I think the reason is to show that co-operative effort is more valuable than solo effort. We are here for each other is one of the simplest and hardest lessons to learn. But in time the profundity of that concept, in regards to being God like or doing God's Will, is not Lost on one. Very Happy Here's a few things to consider about Prayer that may help in the success of One's test. I think one of the most important things is, "If at first you don't succeed, try try again."

Indeed, and I at one point prayed for the same thing day after day for easily over a month. The content of the prayer I don't wish to be public, so if you think it is relevant, Pm me.

Aside from all that is superself in the experience of praying, it should be remembered that ethical prayer is a splendid way to elevate one's ego and reinforce the self for better living and higher attainment. Prayer induces the human ego to look both ways for help: for material aid to the subconscious reservoir of mortal experience, for inspiration and guidance to the superconscious borders of the contact of the material with the spiritual

I can't dispute that, as I don't have the info, and wouldn't care to anyway. I would state however, that my purpose in prayer was only rarely psychological(during the time I was suffering from major depression, prayed for help, and then bad things happened to me/my family)

No prayer can be ethical when the petitioner seeks for selfish advantage over his fellows. Selfish and materialistic praying is incompatible with the ethical religions which are predicated on unselfish and divine love. All such unethical praying reverts to the primitive levels of pseudo magic and is unworthy of advancing civilizations and enlightened religions. Selfish praying transgresses the spirit of all ethics founded on loving justice.

In all your praying be fair; do not expect God to show partiality, to love you more than his other children, your friends, neighbors, even enemies....Egoistic prayers involve confessions and petitions and often consist in requests for material favors. Prayer is somewhat more ethical when it deals with forgiveness and seeks wisdom for enhanced self-control.

While the nonselfish type of prayer is strengthening and comforting, materialistic praying is destined to bring disappointment and disillusionment as advancing scientific discoveries demonstrate that man lives in a physical universe of law and order. The childhood of an individual or a race is characterized by primitive, selfish, and materialistic praying. And, to a certain extent, all such petitions are efficacious in that they unvaryingly lead to those efforts and exertions which are contributory to achieving the answers to such prayers. The real prayer of faith always contributes to the augmentation of the technique of living, even if such petitions are not worthy of spiritual recognition.

To clarify, my prayers were never materialistic(not that I think you are saying they are). I am very much not a materialistic person. Objects, things don't matter to me. People matter to me. Nature matters to me.

My prayers also were not selfish, unless you count "Please God, save me. I don't have the strength to save myself." as selfish. (again. back when I was very depressed.)

from your phrasing above, it almost seems as if one cannot pray for anything that you could possibly be able to tell if it were answered. if you cannot pray for petitions, then you do not seem able to ask for anything, and praying for self-characteristics is not possible to detect answers on, and most likely an answer would be meaningless anyway, as, by your account, praying for it will cause you to develop it yourself anyway.

Prayer must never be so prostituted as to become a substitute for action. All ethical prayer is a stimulus to action and a guide to the progressive striving for idealistic goals of superself-attainment.

How does this apply to prayers for something that you cannot possibly affect yourself. I never prayed for anything I thought I could effect myself, because it would seem ridiculous and lazy.

If you would like to try an experiment with me either on thread or via PM I would be more than amenable to such a joint effort. Peace be with you friend.

Potentially possible, but i want to understand before I would do so.

[bernee51]

I hear what your saying. Like this:

I personally don't believe that there was a god holding that hand of evolution the entire time, my reasons being evolutionary "left overs" that a guide probably would have scraped.

So you're are right it's not logical because there's too many suppositons in it.

It just seems to me like it's so far removed from where we are at in two things. How we are today (compared to then). And our still yet minimal knowledge of the processes of how we got here. I think at some future date with our developing systems of recognition and detection of the details of evolution as well as a larger scope of cumulative knowledge we'll be better prepared to understand and critically analyze BOTH of these speculative ideas. Right Now our incursion into the Scientific discovery and information age is still too NEW to give us more definitive answers on either side of the debate. But it certainly is a question worth asking and investigating along both avenues. IMHO

There is more known and supposed than you give credit for. You horizens are in need of expansion. I suggest The Future of Man by the paleontologist and Jesuit priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

The first sentence...THE CONFLICT DATES from the day when one man, flying in the face of appearance, perceived that the forces of nature are no more unalterably fixed in their orbits than the stars themselves, but that their serene arrangement around us depicts the flow of a tremendous tide-the day on which a first voice rang out, crying to Mankind peacefully slumbering on the raft of Earth, We are moving"

I mean a million years ago we weren't developed enough to know God.

That's true - god only arose with self aware consciousness. There is certainly no evidence that I am aware of that had evolved one million yeras ago.

[joer]

I hear what your saying. Like this:

I personally don't believe that there was a god holding that hand of evolution the entire time, my reasons being evolutionary "left overs" that a guide probably would have scraped.

So you're are right it's not logical because there's too many suppositons in it.

It just seems to me like it's so far removed from where we are at in two things. How we are today (compared to then). And our still yet minimal knowledge of the processes of how we got here. I think at some future date with our developing systems of recognition and detection of the details of evolution as well as a larger scope of cumulative knowledge we'll be better prepared to understand and critically analyze BOTH of these speculative ideas. Right Now our incursion into the Scientific discovery and information age is still too NEW to give us more definitive answers on either side of the debate. But it certainly is a question worth asking and investigating along both avenues. IMHO

There is more known and supposed than you give credit for. You horizens are in need of expansion. I suggest The Future of Man by the paleontologist and Jesuit priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

The first sentence...THE CONFLICT DATES from the day when one man, flying in the face of appearance, perceived that the forces of nature are no more unalterably fixed in their orbits than the stars themselves, but that their serene arrangement around us depicts the flow of a tremendous tide-the day on which a first voice rang out, crying to Mankind peacefully slumbering on the raft of Earth, We are moving"

I mean a million years ago we weren't developed enough to know God.

That's true - god only arose with self aware consciousness. There is certainly no evidence that I am aware of that had evolved one million yeras ago.

Hi Bernee, Thanks for the reference brother. You are right there's no evidence of that exact moment life started. But we were speculation on it. I appreciate that Book Title it looks interesting. Do know the gist of what the author was trying to convey to us? Like his main focus in the book?

The million figure is speculation that we were developed enough mentally to have the capacity consciously conceive of a God. Although I imagine it may have been hundred of thousands of years before we evolve far enough to have a cosmic model that included God or something like a God. Or actually probably a Lot of gods.

Thanks Bernee. Good Will to you brother.

[bernee51]

Hi Bernee, Thanks for the reference brother. You are right there's no evidence of that exact moment life started. But we were speculation on it. I appreciate that Book Title it looks interesting. Do know the gist of what the author was trying to convey to us? Like his main focus in the book?

I certainly found it interesting and I think you would like it Joer…at the centre of his philosophy was the belief that the human species is evolving spiritually, progressing from a simple faith to higher and higher forms of consciousness, including a consciousness of God, and culminating in the ultimate understanding of humankind’s place and purpose in the universe.

[Nilloc James]

I mean a million years ago we weren't developed enough to know God.

Sorry by your answer it is clear I misworded my question.

If we could not comprehend the creator god when we became homo-sapiens or earlier when did we magically switch over to being able to know god?

I find it hard to beleive that humans would be able to accuratly guess what the creator god actually was.

[joer]

I mean a million years ago we weren't developed enough to know God.

Sorry by your answer it is clear I misworded my question.

If we could not comprehend the creator god when we became homo-sapiens or earlier when did we magically switch over to being able to know god?

I find it hard to believe that humans would be able to accurately guess what the creator god actually was.

Hi James, No it's my fault I'm not being clear. What I'm trying to try say and it is just speculation. Is that at some time in our evolutionary development are brains evolved sufficient in physical capacity to as Bernee says to be self conscious. To become that which makes us different intellectually from other animals. I don't know if it was Homo erectus, Java man, Neanderthal, but at some point the physical capacity to do that developed. And then I think it would have been quite a time before we as human type beings ACTUALLY started using that physical capacity in a though of otherness as in an Outside Power acting on us. And I'm not saying understanding God like we do today. So there was never a magic switch over to God consciousness. IMHO there was a slow evolutionary development first in physical capacity to be able to do it And then in metal development until some primitive form of God or Spirit or deity was actually first actualized.

And in my POV we will never Know GOD absolutely. We can only progress in our evolutionary understanding of GOD. BUT, let me separate this so it's not confused with the previous part. Because this is where I believe I diverge from the non-believers POV.

I also believe we can experience God personally and because of that, part of our evolutionary understanding of God ALSO comes from these subjective experineces.

This is where it gets hard and belief and faith firgure in. This is where you are going to believe that guy who saw the airplane crash or not. With no other evidence beside his personal experience of what he saw.

There's NO WAY you can know if he saw it or not. SO what is it that makes us believe him or not?

[Nilloc James]

Okay this post I found more to disagree with however I still think you hit afew good points,

Hi James, No it's my fault I'm not being clear. What I'm trying to try say and it is just speculation. Is that at some time in our evolutionary development are brains evolved sufficient in physical capacity to as Bernee says to be self conscious. To become that which makes us different intellectually from other animals. I don't know if it was Homo erectus, Java man, Neanderthal, but at some point the physical capacity to do that developed. And then I think it would have been quite a time before we as human type beings ACTUALLY started using that physical capacity in a though of otherness as in an Outside Power acting on us. And I'm not saying understanding God like we do today. So there was never a magic switch over to God consciousness. IMHO there was a slow evolutionary development first in physical capacity to be able to do it And then in metal development until some primitive form of God or Spirit or deity was actually first actualized.

Which god?

This is where it gets hard and belief and faith firgure in. This is where you are going to believe that guy who saw the airplane crash or not. With no other evidence beside his personal experience of what he saw.

You have a good point here so I would like to pose a qustion back,

One man tells you he saw a car crash

Another tells you he saw a pink unicorn.

Who do you beleive more?

Interested in a response,

James.

[joer]

James wrote:

Which god?

At the point I’ll specking of maybe ½ a million years ago. I’m speculating that at some point a human would develop a consciousness of a god-like personage or energy form, Like the god in fire, the sun. the moon. The river, the lake, no God in particular just the human would form some mental image of God somewhere along the line of their evolutionary development. IMHO.

I'll answer the last part back on the other thread where I drew the example from because I believe it will be usefull there. It's a good question. Thanks James.

Good Will my friend.

[Nilloc James]

Alrgith I understand your position, now I'm curious of how we go from god like beleif to the religions we have now.

[bernee51]

And in my POV we will never Know GOD absolutely.

And in my POV we can know god absolutely – understand the nature of being and you understand god. Integrating that knowledge into a ‘realization’ (i.e making it ‘real’) is the difficult part.

I also believe we can experience God personally and because of that, part of our evolutionary understanding of God ALSO comes from these subjective experiences.

Agreed – it can ONLY be a subjective experience.

This is where it gets hard and belief and faith figure in.

Now you are talking about a god who is an ‘other’. If god is an ‘other’ it is not subjective. This type of god requires faith and belief – it cannot be experienced.

[joer]

Hi Bernee I love these questions. They force one to reach to the depths of their understanding in my opinion. Thank You so much for your post. That was SWEET!

And in my POV we will never Know GOD absolutely.

And in my POV we can know god absolutely – understand the nature of being and you understand god. Integrating that knowledge into a ‘realization’ (i.e making it ‘real’) is the difficult part.

If by “knowing God absolutely� you mean “understanding the nature of being� as Infinitely Expanding in it’s “becoming REAL�AND we know All possible limits of WHAT it could become (REALized), I might understand what you are saying and agree with you in theory. BUT NOT in the actuality of human possibility. BUT in eternity I think we can come real close to doing JUST THAT!

I also believe we can experience God personally and because of that, part of our evolutionary understanding of God ALSO comes from these subjective experiences.

Agreed – it can ONLY be a subjective experience.

I think there’s a caveat here Bernee. Because of our creation of OBJECTIVE REALITY from Subjective experience, it puts our experiential understanding of GOD AND OBJECTIVITY as coming from the SAME Subjective Undefined Source.

Don’t you think that might be a possible conceptualization that may serve us as in understanding our process of “that, THAT simply ‘IS’� (“Being� in it’s natural undefined form)

This is where it gets hard and belief and faith figure in.

Now you are talking about a god who is an ‘other’. If god is an ‘other’ it is not subjective. This type of god requires faith and belief – it cannot be experienced.

The otherness is differentiation AND attenuation of “WHAT IS� for the purpose of unlimited and ever expanding “experiential reality� of unlimited “SELF� which is ever expanding “BEING� in the fullest sense of Understanding THAT. IMHO