tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2083251532405290439.post8837146546166873866..comments2012-02-01T02:08:20.435-05:00Comments on Dig: Prayer Is OddB. W. Fullfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03073972290360672401noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2083251532405290439.post-85408314775557912552008-03-25T15:37:00.000-04:002008-03-25T15:37:00.000-04:00Thank you for your reply. I'll respond according ...Thank you for your reply. I'll respond according to your comments.<BR/><BR/>Paragraph 1:<BR/>Hopefully my response will further elaborate on why prayer is odd. With respect to your comment on instruction "thy will be done" it begs the question of why prayer should be more than a simple "thy will be done". If that is all I'm asking for then why get into specifics? Why pray for healing? <BR/><BR/>1. I'm not sure how you interpreted any denoucing. I merely used specific examples of how people may utilize prayer. I accept these are but a small sampling. Matt 18:20 warrant discusion regarding what is meant by it. What does it mean to be in the midst of them and if it is only 1 person is God not there.<BR/><BR/>2. This is not an argument against prayer. How did you come to that conclusion? Regarding the "Other", it is critical to prayer that the "Other" is defined. If not the "to whom" of prayer is undefined. If, as you noted, we are to discuss biblical incidents, I must first define the "Other" as the God as defined within the biblical context. What validates that in order for me to take that "leap of faith"? As I note further, that move is subjective and can be validated individually.<BR/><BR/>With respect to insanity, I would disagree. I can physically pick up the phone. When the voice answers I know it is not mine. If I have a picture phone I can watch the person speak to me. Now we can all be Hume-ian skeptics about this but I am closer to belief that I am not insane if I'm on the phone as opposed to praying. Do we here auditory responses when we pray? If I recorded a prayer and a phone conversation, which would supply me with evidence of an "other" existing? The key word is "tangible" and a phone conversation offers more tangible validation.<BR/><BR/>3. I'm not sure why you felt the need to even question whether my argument becomes invalid because I used the word "because" instead of "becomes". Seems trivial and insignificant to the discussion.<BR/><BR/>I believe I have satisfied the strange action position based on the lack of any tangible validation. To elaborate using your example, if I go to the house of the person which I called on the phone and find them there I now have tangible validation. Where is my tangible validation in prayer? Where do I go to validate God?<BR/><BR/>4. I am not suggesting either is more or less important. I think you completely misunderstood this post. The greater context is defined by the discussion on relationship, a component which you completely avoided. Further, you have not addressed the commonality between the 3 examples nor how the diety would address them. My contention that whether they are answered or not is insignificant as noted by the Karl Barth quote.<BR/><BR/>Your assumption is that the "Biblical context" is true. If I assume that to be the case I'm still left with the problem of unanswered prayer. Further, there is nothing you stated which compels me to believe that a parishoner on their knees speaking to God is any different than the man in the psych ward speaking to the little blue man on his shoulder. How can you tell him the little blue man doesn't exist?B. W. Fullfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03073972290360672401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2083251532405290439.post-28519268592246051162008-03-25T15:01:00.000-04:002008-03-25T15:01:00.000-04:00I concede that you are confounded, but I don't und...I concede that you are confounded, but I don't understand why you believe that prayer is "odd". If you are going to analyze the concept of prayer, it seems that you would base and begin your argument with the source, "It's" instruction on how to pray: "Thy will be done". It's as simple as that. You quote Matthew 18:20 but not Matthew 6?<BR/><BR/>(1) It is easy (and a bit cheap) to denounce bedside or pre-sports prayer; do you honestly believe that Matt. 18:20 promises eternal earthly life if one prays for it every day? This is not a promise of God, but, using the logic you put forth in your argument, that premise must be true.<BR/><BR/>(2) If you are going to construct an argument against prayer, why not discuss the Biblical incidents of it and not try to equate a personal "Other" connection with a broad generalization of mental illness? Using your definition of "insanity", speaking on the phone is insane. <BR/><BR/>(3) You accidentally typed the word "because" instead of "becomes"; should that one sentence negate your whole argument? No, I consider the context put forth and understand the meaning behind what you meant to write. Now it's your turn; build your "strange action" argument considering its Biblical context, not one facet of its earthly use.<BR/><BR/>(4) "what then becomes the distinction between the psych patient and the football player taking to himself before the play compared to the parishoner on their knees?" -- There is no distinction and why should there be? Prayer is an equal-opportunity pathway, trod by each individual in his/her own way. Surely you are not suggesting that a parishioner's prayer is more important or more "right" than anyone else's. If so, again, read prayer's Biblical context; you might clear up some of that confusion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10364930394144529431noreply@blogger.com