The Power of Prayer

[Slip Disc]

Here's one for the Good Book and one for the Bad Idea.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535861,00.html

Do people actually think/believe like this?

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Yep sadly they do. You know he could have avioded the death of his
daughter if only he said to himself, well I have never noticed God
come down and personaly answer any of my prayers, perhaps then God
works his healing through the medium of Doctors. *sigh* But he didnt.

[Lonlaz]

You know, praying as taught by Christians never did make sense to me,
even when I was Christian. I did pray, but I had a different model of
what I was doing in my mind. The main conundrum as a Christian is
that praying to God and specifically asking for something, expecting
it to happen, doesn't seem to have any theological place in my mind.
An all-knowing God should know what's good for you and will deliver it
whether you like it or not, whether you asked for it, or not, to
assume otherwise is arrogance. Also, it's evident that this is not a
world in which God rewards people with favors in proportion to their
faith.

On Jul 31, 10:19 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com"

> > Do people actually think/believe like this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[deripsni]

How unfortunate, and how true. Fanaticism seems to sap intellect and
cloud reason. Very sad indeed. :-[[[

[l...@rdfmedia.com]

Yeah exactly, I see prayer as no more than singing the praises of the
creator, that and only that.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

Lee, I see the purer characterstics of Bhakti personified in you. And,
I am amazed !

I am greatly interested in knowing how you came to see Sikhi as your
path to God. What happened ? How did you come to choose ? What path
had you subscribed to before choosing Sikhi ?

Perhaps I'm asking more than I should. But I see no harm in making my
request. You may after all choose to tell us this part of your story.
Such is my interest.

On Jul 31, 9:37 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

[BB47]

On Jul 31, 9:37 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

> Yeah exactly, I see prayer as no more than singing the praises of the
> creator, that and only that.

I don't understand why the creator needs praise

[ornamentalmind]

"...Do people actually think/believe like this? " - SD

Slip, have you forgotten our last president already???!!!!!

[Slip Disc]

I believe it to be a human trait to honor those before us and those
who brought us into the world, such as parental figures and
grandparents. I just don't get all the fear mongering based on belief
and disbelief, being saved and the threat of destruction and torture
in the abyss of some hell.

[BB47]

On Jul 31, 11:53 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe it to be a human trait to honor those before us and those
> who brought us into the world, such as parental figures and
> grandparents.

OK, I can see that, but mine didn't expect "praise" they only
required respect. Not the bow down kind, just the "quit being a
smartass" kind (which didn't exactly "take" did it) and perhaps
"thanks" which I certainly can understand. But a true omni god would
not require *any* of that, the way I look at it. It knows
everything, understands everything, so there is no need whatsoever.
A true onmi-god does not have an ego that needs to be stroked by its
own creations (which is the most hilarious concept I can think of)

 >I just don't get all the fear mongering based on belief
> and disbelief, being saved and the threat of destruction and torture
> in the abyss of some hell.

That part seems like a "control" thing to me, but that is just the
way I interpret it.

>
> On Jul 31, 12:52 pm, BB47 <mde...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 31, 9:37 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Yeah exactly, I see prayer as no more than singing the praises of the
> > > creator, that and only that.
>

> > I don't understand why the creator needs praise- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

" But a true omni god would not require *any* of that, the way I look
at it. It knows everything, understands everything, so there is no
need whatsoever. A true onmi-god does not have an ego that needs to be
stroked by its own creations (which is the most hilarious concept I
can think of) "

The question is : How do you know all that you say about this " omni
god ?" Clearly, you are thinking, surmising.

The whole point is that the omni god may not require, have no need,
does not have ... but YOU have an ego, and hence have the need and
would require to " praise " God ( along lines that Lee explains of
Sikhi ). The idea is to fill oneself with the thought of God the
Creator, to the extent of subsuming oneself in IT. To use Sri
Aurobindo's expression, you prepare your within and invite God to take
YOU over.

The whole idea however clashes with what we are used to having of
ourself. So, actually, it is suggested that one take to the path only
under a guide or advisor. Perhaps, hence the need of Sadh Sangat
( holy men ).

An unguided attempt may actually harm the novice, or may at best lead
him into the wilderness of fruitlessness.

Just shared what I know.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[BB47]

On Jul 31, 7:33 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> " But a true omni god would not require *any* of that,  the way I look
> at it.  It knows everything, understands everything, so there is no
> need whatsoever. A true onmi-god does not have an ego that needs to be
> stroked by its own creations (which is the most hilarious concept I
> can think of) "
>
> The question is : How do you know all that you say about this " omni
> god ?"  Clearly, you are thinking, surmising.

Is that a compliment? The first I have received. OK, here is the
argument "condensed"

God is omnipotent
Therefore god knows everything
God certainly knows everything about me, he DESIGNED me
God , having designed me, is not surprised by ANYTHING that I do
God cannot be surprised by anything, otherwise god does not know
everything
If god knows everything I may or may not do, then nothing is required
of me, he already knows
He is not expecting anything but what he designed me to do, and he
knows for a fact exactly what I will do
He certainly would not *require* me to do anything not designed in,
nor get any gratification of any kind from me doing what was designed
in

(please address any of these premises individually, should you not
agree with them. Or, should you not agree with the lineage of this
logic, please point that out)

> The whole point is that the omni god may not require, have no need,
> does not have ...  but YOU have an ego, and hence have the need and
> would require to " praise " God

Not if I understand god in the terms that I described above

>( along lines that Lee explains of
> Sikhi ). The idea is to fill oneself with the thought of God the
> Creator, to the extent of subsuming oneself in IT. To use Sri
> Aurobindo's expression, you prepare your within and invite God to take
> YOU over.

That was designed in already. Everything I am was supposedly
designed. There should be no need for me to do that. Yes, if I am
out of synch, I should try to get back in synch myself, but that too
would have been designed in, no surprise to god, he knows I am going
to go through everything I will go through, done deal, let it play
out.

> The whole idea however clashes with what we are used to having of
> ourself. So, actually, it is suggested that one take to the path only
> under a guide or advisor. Perhaps, hence the need of Sadh Sangat
> ( holy men ).

Why? God designed me and my brain. Yes, I have what I consider "free
will" but god knows the whole story. God is not wondering or hoping
what I will do, god knows what I will do. There is no need for
artificial "intervention" There is no need for men to try and "fix"
me. I am designed by god. Aren't you?

> An unguided attempt may actually harm the novice, or may at best lead
> him into the wilderness of fruitlessness.

Well god is a terrible designer then.

> Just shared what I know.

I just share what I think. I don't "know" a damn thing.

[Slip Disc]

I think people that often correlated disaster, disease and death with
retribution from a vengeful God would most likely make every effort to
appease or satiate by any means available. A massive storm may have
been attributed to a tribal member's failure or deviation from tribal
law which triggered God's retributive anger and therefore called for
ceremonial sacrificing or other method of atonement and reconciliation
with God. Considering that people had a high level of fear concerning
God it is easy to see that adoration and praise would be standard
fair. Concerning our parents we can see that whether of not we had
respect or shown obedience we never really worried that a huge rock
would fall off a mountain and kill us on account of that disrespect.
Much of what we perceive about God stems from our own behavior, after
all we do punish our children when they misbehave and some parents
actually disown theirs and so we would think that God is punishing us
when we are doing something wrong, which of course is determined by
the tenets and dogmas that were laid out by the Prophets, Scribes,
Pharisees and Priests of the time. Once they learned that the people
would follow their dictum the control issues became more apparent and
of course tithing and respect was directed to them, the
representatives of God. It's really easy to see how it all evolves
into what we have today. As time went on people in the clergy started
to realize those at the top were making more money and so they would
find some way to disagree with scriptural texts and then branch off on
their own thereby establishing themselves as a separate entity and
authority which raked in the funds from those who would follow them,
many times of course the tenets were less restrictive which was an
attraction for those who didn't like following all the rules to the
letter. It's still happening today with store front churches
springing up on every corner. Let's face it, all you need is a bible,
the ability to read and interpret, and a fancy name like church of the
heavenly lamb, oh yeah, don't forget the wicker baskets to pass
around. TV evangelists are raking in billions of dollars so the
incentive is there to start your own congregation.

[BB47]

You are so wordy. Everybody in here is so wordy. I like to condense
and boil down, but I am still your groupie.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

Clarification is the key when relating to a diverse group of people
within a "global" community. Aside from that conclusions are not
derived from single aspect phrasing with disregard for semantic
interpretation. While a post may seem directed specifically to you it
is ultimately there for others to read and form opinion which leads to
further discussion. Within the Internet forum, intellectual
discourse is difficult because it lacks facial expression, vocal
inflection and body posture that enhance the intended meaning or
effect what one might construe. Many posts contain inference and
implication content which by all means should be made clear to avoid
much of the adversity that you encounter with trite, vague or
condensed versions. You on the other hand spend much time pulling out
words and phrases from others posts and request elaboration of
meaning, so it should be obvious to you that expending a bit more
energy initially can save more energy later. Fact is that you might
have a dozen condensed and boiled down posts that you could combined
into one or two wordier posts. It's six of one and half dozen of the
other.

[BB47]

Good points.

On Jul 31, 8:55 pm, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
  >Within the Internet forum, intellectual
> discourse is difficult because it lacks facial expression, vocal
> inflection and body posture that enhance the intended meaning or
> effect what one might construe.

You can say that again, but don't. I am finding that out the hard
way.

> Many posts contain inference and
> implication content which by all means should be made clear to avoid
> much of the adversity that you encounter with trite, vague or
> condensed versions.

I am going to have to get wordy, great.

> You on the other hand spend much time pulling out
> words and phrases from others posts and request elaboration of
> meaning, so it should be obvious to you that expending a bit more
> energy initially can save more energy later.

I doubt that is going to help me, but I get your point.

> Fact is that you might
> have a dozen condensed and boiled down posts that you could combined
> into one or two wordier posts.  It's six of one and half dozen of the
> other.

Well I am six person then.

[Slip Disc]

Very good, Grasshopper, you will do well.

In Minds Eye we not only use our own brain but also the brains of
everyone else.

[puppy]

"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It
takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the
opposite direction."
Albert Einstein

[puppy]

"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It
takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the
opposite direction."
Albert Einstein

" Within the Internet forum, intellectual discourse is difficult
because it lacks facial expression, vocal
inflection and body posture that enhance the intended meaning or

effect what one might construe." Are you saying that people can't
have an intellgent talk(intellectual discoures) because they can't see
the other person that they are talking too. Its done on the telephone
millions of times a day

[BB47]

On Aug 1, 5:50 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very good, Grasshopper,  you will do well.
>
> In Minds Eye we not only use our own brain but also the brains of
> everyone else.

Can I borrow a cup of cerebellum?

You know lots of people say "you can't know the mind of god"
They seem to slap this down on the table as "end of discussion"
While that statement is true, I think there is a wealth of
information that can be gleaned from what
god does and does not do. We can derive much information by the
powers god must certainly have
in order to be a god. To deliberately overlook these vast areas of
research with "you can't know the mind of god"
seems intellectually dishonest to me.
Faith seems to me to be a shutting down process of inquiry. The
faithful call it "surrender"
That is one way to go, I suppose, are the faithful saying the
intellect must be surrendered for god?
The tough questions no longer get asked? And if the answers don't
come? God gets the benefit of doubt.
I don't find that very satisfying myself. Sure, there is plenty of
feel-good to cling to for the faithful, but I have a strange way of
looking at a belief:

If I cannot defend my belief or idea, from every angle of attack, I
don't think it is a belief worth having.
That is where I am coming from. Your mileage may vary, does not
include tax and license, and may cause side effects.

[Slip Disc]

OK so you took that Einstein quote from my profile, now what?

[Slip Disc]

Are you saying that people can't
> have an intellgent talk(intellectual discoures) because they can't see

> the other person that they are talking too. <<<<Puppy


Maybe if you improve your reading comprehension skills you wouldn't
have to ask such questions.

I "DID" say "intellectual discourse is difficult", I did "NOT" say it
was impossible.

Your telephone example is invalid because people can "hear" the vocal
inflection and tone which can indicate the overall demeanor of the
participants.

At least you have an appropriate name!

[puppy]

Faith, is not a bad idea, it is based on the belief in the unseen. I
have seen people brought back from the edge of self-destruction by
their belief in the unseen.
Here is one for the good book: Joyce Meyer, a believer in the
unseen, has create a fundamentalist Christian religious
organization that has saved tens of thousands of children across the
world from starvation.

[Slip Disc]

People could have faith in anything, including but not limited to
rocks, amulets, lucky charms and four leaf clovers. The positive end
result of people emerging from a self destructive pattern can be
attributed to a personal will to effect change not faith in something
that is non-existent. The existence of the "unseen" is an
assumption.
Joyce Meyer's effort is not prayer based but simply another "hands on"
assistance program. If prayer had any influence on the starving
people of the world we could all sit home and wait for the starvation
to come to and end. Joyce Meyer, aside from rambling on with myriad
assumptions, raises "money" which enables the humanitarian effort,
which has been achieved by many others without reference to any faith
based organization.