Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: Practical praying

124»

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Well my prayers have born fruit. I just emailed everyone in the city who can't help either.

    Well that shows me!

    A phenomenal response.

    By the city itself - Leicester, Dawn Centre - and a charity - Action Homeless.

    His provision is rich and all we've got to do is ask - the right PEOPLE.

    So pray to keep things in mind, pray without ceasing until you DO something. Ask, Seek, Knock on ALL doors.
  • wabale wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    There seems to me to be a general awareness that prayers are not nowadays considered to have the same power as they probably were in the not so distant past ...
    Is there, I wonder, a general acceptance that the 'role' of God has altered, or that prayers must be updated somehow?
    Yes, I think there is.

    Yes, and Yes. But I don’t think this perception is correct..

    This has been a most interesting thread. I think that ‘simplicity’is a key word in thinking about the process of prayer, but I have not given the process much thought over the years. This is, I think, because my becoming a Christian in the first place was as a result of a series of coincidences which I can best describe as a miracle.
    Even though you think of them as a miracle, do you at the same timeacknowledge that they were coincidences?
    My Christian life has since been ‘a walk with the Lord’ which involves talking to him, listening to him, and accepting Him.
    Have there been ways in which you have differentiated between what you discern as what God is saying and what you are thinking?
    As an historian rather than a theologian I struggle with the historicity of the Scriptures. Part of my problem is not so much with the Scriptures, but with what our society has done with them. Theologians tend to be relentlessly analytical. For example when I encountered theology at university in the 1960’s many theologians had apparently ‘analysed’ the Gospels out of their now generally accepted origins in the 1st Century. If you add this to the inbuilt prejudice of people concerning the past - that people who did not have digital watches must have been stupid (!) - you consign the Old Testament for instance to irrelevance. My sense that something remarkable actually happened over the last few thousands of years was restored, oddly enough, by reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s History of Christianity.
    The more I read about history, the more I wish I'd studied it more when young! Wikipedia is very useful with this when it comes to finding out about people's lives. For instance, ;I did not realise that Kaiser Wilhelm II did not die until 1941.
    In my view there is indeed an apparent lack of power in prayer compared with the past. But in Scripture there are many indications our sense of what is possible in prayer may need totally recalibrating: ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.’ John 4 v.12.

  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2019
    With what you wrote :tongue:

    In particular, that by saying we should become like little children, Jesus wasn’t telling to ask for divine intervention in the material world. Little children clamour for their material needs to be met all the time.

    A crying baby is asking for spiritual or philosophical enlightenment. It wants not to starve to death. Which is about as “material world” as it gets.

    I wrote nowt apart from quoting a metaphor and how we go about interpreting it. So you disagree with the quote? And don't you mean "isn't"?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    Let’s say childlike in the trusting of God. Not childish using a child’s way of thinking.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    Let’s say childlike in the trusting of God. Not childish using a child’s way of thinking.
    Anything child-like, or childish, involves accepting without due consideration, adequate, or even some, knowledge, and therefore open to some degree of control or exploitation. That might sound rather over the top, and yes it is, but we bring children up to think for themselves, to be able to discern goodand truth and not fall prey to their opposites, so I still think that the think as a child analogy is not a useful one andshould probably be taken as poor advice.

    In fact, the next time I hear it used as a lovely piece of charming advice, I shall make a point of e-mailing the person concerned if I can!
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Anything child-like, or childish, involves accepting without due consideration, adequate, or even some, knowledge, and therefore open to some degree of control or exploitation. That might sound rather over the top, and yes it is, but we bring children up to think for themselves, to be able to discern good and truth and not fall prey to their opposites, so I still think that the think as a child analogy is not a useful one and should probably be taken as poor advice.

    In fact, the next time I hear it used as a lovely piece of charming advice, I shall make a point of e-mailing the person concerned if I can!

    @SusanDoris This reads as if this thread is another attempt to show that prayer has no efficacy and those who pray are credulous and stupid. We have been here before. Did you read the research I posted earlier showing the benefits of prayer in trust, which is what that Biblical quotation is urging, not because it is linked to miracles, but because the people who pray in trust have a greater life satisfaction with time, have lower blood pressure and other health benefits not provided by meditation.
    ... what you see in people who have been praying quietly with trust for years, [is] a peacefulness and serenity. And that is borne out by this research paper from 2013
    A considerable number of studies have focused on the relationship between prayer, health, and well-being. But the influence of some types of prayer (e.g., petitionary prayer) has received more attention than others. The purpose of this study is to examine an overlooked aspect of prayer: trust-based prayer beliefs. People with this orientation believe that God knows that best way to answer a prayer and He selects the best time to provide an answer. Three main findings emerge from data that were provided by a nationwide longitudinal survey of older people reveals. First, the results reveal that Conservative Protestants are more likely to endorse trust-based prayer beliefs. Second, the findings suggest that these prayer beliefs tend to be reinforced through prayer groups and informal support from fellow church members. <snip> Third, the data indicate that stronger trust-based prayer beliefs are associated with a greater sense of life satisfaction over time.

    This 2012 Huffington Post article discusses the evidence that time spent in prayer and meditation gives health benefits, including reduced blood pressure, and this 2017 study (pdf) compared prayer to meditation and found that meditation did not demonstrate the same benefits.

    Yes, I was surprised how much I found that was so positive when I looked for research looking at the benefits of prayer to those who pray. That was from a very quick search.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    And God teaches us and grows our understanding. You are taking it too literally. I gave you another passage and said we have to balance the two. You seem to have totally ignored that and just focused down on this issue.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Anything child-like, or childish, involves accepting without due consideration, adequate, or even some, knowledge, and therefore open to some degree of control or exploitation. That might sound rather over the top, and yes it is, but we bring children up to think for themselves, to be able to discern good and truth and not fall prey to their opposites, so I still think that the think as a child analogy is not a useful one and should probably be taken as poor advice.

    In fact, the next time I hear it used as a lovely piece of charming advice, I shall make a point of e-mailing the person concerned if I can!

    @SusanDoris This reads as if this thread is another attempt to show that prayer has no efficacy and those who pray are credulous and stupid. We have been here before. Did you read the research I posted earlier showing the benefits of prayer in trust, which is what that Biblical quotation is urging, not because it is linked to miracles, but because the people who pray in trust have a greater life satisfaction with time, have lower blood pressure and other health benefits not provided by meditation.
    ... what you see in people who have been praying quietly with trust for years, [is] a peacefulness and serenity. And that is borne out by this research paper from 2013
    A considerable number of studies have focused on the relationship between prayer, health, and well-being. But the influence of some types of prayer (e.g., petitionary prayer) has received more attention than others. The purpose of this study is to examine an overlooked aspect of prayer: trust-based prayer beliefs. People with this orientation believe that God knows that best way to answer a prayer and He selects the best time to provide an answer. Three main findings emerge from data that were provided by a nationwide longitudinal survey of older people reveals. First, the results reveal that Conservative Protestants are more likely to endorse trust-based prayer beliefs. Second, the findings suggest that these prayer beliefs tend to be reinforced through prayer groups and informal support from fellow church members. <snip> Third, the data indicate that stronger trust-based prayer beliefs are associated with a greater sense of life satisfaction over time.

    This 2012 Huffington Post article discusses the evidence that time spent in prayer and meditation gives health benefits, including reduced blood pressure, and this 2017 study (pdf) compared prayer to meditation and found that meditation did not demonstrate the same benefits.

    Yes, I was surprised how much I found that was so positive when I looked for research looking at the benefits of prayer to those who pray. That was from a very quick search.
    I apologise to you and Hugal if you have gained the impression that I was using this to persuade of my way of thinking. I have thought carefully when writing each post to avoid that very thing and have listened carefully to all replies. I have found it very interesting and it seems others have too. As I said earlier on, this would be, I hoped, a middle - no defined beginning or end.

    I am well aware of the benefits of silent thought, whether it be in the form of prayer or not; such retrospection and projection are essential to well-being. I am not the sort of person who feels that practising meditation would be of benefit, but understand why others feel differently. No, I did not click on the link.


  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    That’s a bit of a vague question, SusanDoris, and I’m not quite sure what sort of thing you’re talking about. In the way in communication, do you mean, where different people have different assumptions?
    /re-reading the post I see that, yes, it is vague. I will try to think of a specific example.

    SusanDoris, do you maybe mean there are problems in conversations between, say, Christians and atheists, when one or both sides fail to acknowledge that the other side is coming from a different perspective? Such as a Christian speaking as if God's existence is a given assumption on both sides, or an atheist speaking as if God's non-existence is a given on both sides? Or do you maybe mean interpretations about each other's motives? Such as when a Christian assumes atheists are deliberately denying God, despite knowing in their hearts that God exists, or when an atheist assumes Christians are simply believing what they've been told without questioning, because they want something nice and comforting to believe in? I would definitely agree those kind of interpretations do get in the way of intelligent discussion.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    Let’s say childlike in the trusting of God. Not childish using a child’s way of thinking.
    Anything child-like, or childish, involves accepting without due consideration, adequate, or even some, knowledge, and therefore open to some degree of control or exploitation. That might sound rather over the top, and yes it is, but we bring children up to think for themselves, to be able to discern goodand truth and not fall prey to their opposites, so I still think that the think as a child analogy is not a useful one andshould probably be taken as poor advice.

    In fact, the next time I hear it used as a lovely piece of charming advice, I shall make a point of e-mailing the person concerned if I can!
    This isn’t an argument as such, but I have been pondering this on and off since it was posted. I want to offer two images. The first is of a small child being tossed in the air by a parent, and laughing with glee at the experience. Part of the fun comes from the apparent danger within an overall context of being able to trust that they are safe with the parent. That kind of ability to trust is, as you say, open to exploitation; but it also opens the door to experiences and a way of being which are closed off when it is gone.

    Secondly, when I learned lifesaving in water, one of the things we learnt was the need for the person being rescued to relax and trust, otherwise both would-be rescuer and rescuee may drown. Indeed we were taught a self-preservation technique for when the victim is so panicked and clingy that this is a real threat. Again the trust that the victim needs to have at that point I would characterise as childlike.

    As an adult, because we are aware of the risk of being exploited, childlike trust is less easy to come by. If we are lucky it may still be there with some people we relate to - lifelong friends, spouses etc. For me it is also there in relation to God.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.

    The concept of a God is what they reject. I haven't looked in detail into different beliefs about fairies in order to not believe in them. Have you?
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Even though you think of them as a miracle, do you at the same timeacknowledge that they were coincidences?
    Yes. But since this happened 56 years ago and reminiscences are notoriously unreliable as evidence I have forgotten the corroborative and convincing (to me at any rate) detail! Part of it was someone I met. He was an ex-prisoner and a Christian, whom I met while working in a factory drawing office: his account of an incident that had happened to him and his family was totally off the chart, random rather than coincidence, and this was one of many things he said and did that convinced me he was the genuine article.
    This led to my life being turned upside down, including the conviction that the maker of the universe interfers in subtle ways and that prayer is a part of this. Nothing in his story actually broke the laws of physics, but as I continued to explore life as a Christian it made me more open to the idea, for example, of praying for people who are sick. Like many churches ours has a ministry team, and it’s actually people’s doctors who from time to time refer to an unexpected recovery as ‘miraculous’. On the other hand, I don’t think this activity should be taken over by the National Health Service at this point in time.

    Edited quoting code for clarity. BroJames. Purgatory Host
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.

    The concept of a God is what they reject. I haven't looked in detail into different beliefs about fairies in order to not believe in them. Have you?

    That's too simplistic. The concept of a God they reject is probably not unlike one that Christians reject as well.

    Also atheists may be agnostic towards a deist concept of God.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.

    The concept of a God is what they reject. I haven't looked in detail into different beliefs about fairies in order to not believe in them. Have you?

    That's too simplistic. The concept of a God they reject is probably not unlike one that Christians reject as well.

    Also atheists may be agnostic towards a deist concept of God.

    OK; I'm not getting this across well. What the atheists I know reject is Gods. All Gods. Whatever type of God. They're not interested in what believers in that God think he's like, because they don't think Gods of any kind exist.

    Again, I don't believe in fairies, but no-one comes to me saying "Ah, but if you're thinking of Cottingley type fairies I don't believe in them either. Have you considered the fairies I believe in, which don't have wings but can turn invisible?" and so on and so forth.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Hugal wrote: »
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.

    Theology knows nothing that atheists need. Christianity has one thing to offer them, but evangelism works at the extreme margin, 1:1000 explicit atheists or any other belief group. The Bible is all but useless to the rest.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.

    The concept of a God is what they reject. I haven't looked in detail into different beliefs about fairies in order to not believe in them. Have you?

    This is an old fallacy, I think, that you need in-depth knowledge of Christianity, (or fairies), in order to reject it. Not really, you just lack a belief in the supernatural. However, I thought that atheists show quite a high knowledge of religion, especially those who used to be religious. There was a survey on this, is it Pew Forum?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.

    The concept of a God is what they reject. I haven't looked in detail into different beliefs about fairies in order to not believe in them. Have you?

    That's too simplistic. The concept of a God they reject is probably not unlike one that Christians reject as well.

    Also atheists may be agnostic towards a deist concept of God.

    OK; I'm not getting this across well. What the atheists I know reject is Gods. All Gods. Whatever type of God. They're not interested in what believers in that God think he's like, because they don't think Gods of any kind exist.

    Again, I don't believe in fairies, but no-one comes to me saying "Ah, but if you're thinking of Cottingley type fairies I don't believe in them either. Have you considered the fairies I believe in, which don't have wings but can turn invisible?" and so on and so forth.

    Fair enough, I do accept that your fairy analogy works.
  • ... However, I thought that atheists show quite a high knowledge of religion, especially those who used to be religious. There was a survey on this, is it Pew Forum?
    And the God/ Christianity that quite a decent percentage of them reject is one that a decent percentage of Christians (at least outside America) reject too.

  • Yes, Eagleton talks about this in his book, "Reason, Faith and Revolution", that many atheists see God as a "superentity outside the universe", which leaves out the classical view (e.g., Aquinas). Well, probably, but it strikes me that the supernatural is the choke point.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    OK I will go with that.
    However they reject God, not because they have tried to understand but because they are told he doesn't exist. As I said it is not all the atheists I know. Some have reasons why they don’t believe. Others are told on TV and in the media by atheistic writers that God doesn’t exist. They din’t bother questioning it. An ex dance partner of mine was like that. Just accepting without looking.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    ... However, I thought that atheists show quite a high knowledge of religion, especially those who used to be religious. There was a survey on this, is it Pew Forum?
    And the God/ Christianity that quite a decent percentage of them reject is one that a decent percentage of Christians (at least outside America) reject too.

    The quality of rhetoric needed for atheists, whether folk or card carrying, is far higher than the overwhelmingly second and third rate deluge of apologetics now. Nothing works but being nice to people and that doesn't either. Being truly incarnational, holding all things in common, is all but absolutely unheard of. So the only effective way is being born in to a faith. Above all Islam. Unfortunately there is hope for religion in general as it is overwhelmingly socially conservative and the pendulum is swinging to the racist, nationalist right all over the world for keeps. So Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy are doing well and Catholicism is holding its own in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Brazil etc. It - Christianity; other folk, traditional religions will prosper in China, Japan as in India - will continue to expand with the exploding population of Africa. What the <1% of the world who are WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic and very mainly atheist) do is neither here nor there.
  • I just remembered the Courtiers Reply, which supposes that after hearing the boy say that the emperor has no clothes, asserts that the boy obviously lacked knowledge of super-elegant clothes, such as those worn by an emperor. Originally put forward by P Z Myers, it seems to have faded as a polemical tool. It came up a lot with Dawkins, and the notion that he was ignorant about classical theism, more sophisticated theology and so on, but maybe today people are not interested in Dawkins. (Also this stuff is a yawn).
  • But a famous example of the Courtiers Reply concerns Newton, who is is alleged to have replied to a critic of astrology, that he (Newton), knew more about it. But note the clever creationist claim that scientists are using it, when they cite ignorance about evolution among creationists.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK I will go with that.
    However they reject God, not because they have tried to understand but because they are told he doesn't exist. As I said it is not all the atheists I know. Some have reasons why they don’t believe. Others are told on TV and in the media by atheistic writers that God doesn’t exist. They din’t bother questioning it. An ex dance partner of mine was like that. Just accepting without looking.

    Actually, in may cases I think it's that they question the people who tell them God does exist and don't find the justification for claiming he does at all persuasive. I was an atheist growing up; far from being told God didn't exist everyone told me he did. I couldn't work out why I was the only person who saw no reason to suppose he did.

    These days I wonder if my younger self was right.
  • Well, that's the traditional view of assertions which are evidence free. But what is evidence? <maniacal laughter>
  • fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    That’s a bit of a vague question, SusanDoris, and I’m not quite sure what sort of thing you’re talking about. In the way in communication, do you mean, where different people have different assumptions?
    /re-reading the post I see that, yes, it is vague. I will try to think of a specific example.

    SusanDoris, do you maybe mean there are problems in conversations between, say, Christians and atheists, when one or both sides fail to acknowledge that the other side is coming from a different perspective? Such as a Christian speaking as if God's existence is a given assumption on both sides, or an atheist speaking as if God's non-existence is a given on both sides? Or do you maybe mean interpretations about each other's motives? Such as when a Christian assumes atheists are deliberately denying God, despite knowing in their hearts that God exists, or when an atheist assumes Christians are simply believing what they've been told without questioning, because they want something nice and comforting to believe in? I would definitely agree those kind of interpretations do get in the way of intelligent discussion.
    Having tracked back through posts to remind myself what I was thinking, :) I think it was that there is so much information, and this information changes so quicly that more thoughtful answers might not be so readily noticed, but I don't think I can find a good example. The suggestions that you make could all apply and are reminders that the actual understanding of words can vary so widely that perhaps future generations would do wel to slow things down a bit.
  • Also, my memory as a kid, was being told God exists, with no justification given. I remember RE in the sixth form, where we tore such stuff to shreds.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Slight tangent. Most of the atheists I know have not looked at any theology, not really looked at Christianity and not read much of any of the bible. They get there knowledge of Christianity from what they have been told by someone else. How can they reject something they know little or nothing about. Remember I said most not all.
    thank you for putting in the last few words!As a matter of fact, it still surprises me slightly when the verb 'reject' is used, because, as I have mentioned occasionally, my belief simply faded and then was no longer there.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    On a different note, one could say that for an adult to believe, or behave, or accept without question words told to them could be interpreted as being somewhat, or more than a little, naive, even gullible.

    But you then have to balance that with Paul saying that when he became a man he put away childish things. Trusting God with the simplicity a child does is not leaving your brain behind. Our understanding is still important. The simile used by Jesus is a simile not absolutely literal
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a circumstance in which it would be prefereable to think as a child, and I cannot.
    Let’s say childlike in the trusting of God. Not childish using a child’s way of thinking.
    Anything child-like, or childish, involves accepting without due consideration, adequate, or even some, knowledge, and therefore open to some degree of control or exploitation. That might sound rather over the top, and yes it is, but we bring children up to think for themselves, to be able to discern goodand truth and not fall prey to their opposites, so I still think that the think as a child analogy is not a useful one andshould probably be taken as poor advice.

    In fact, the next time I hear it used as a lovely piece of charming advice, I shall make a point of e-mailing the person concerned if I can!
    This isn’t an argument as such, but I have been pondering this on and off since it was posted. I want to offer two images. The first is of a small child being tossed in the air by a parent, and laughing with glee at the experience. Part of the fun comes from the apparent danger within an overall context of being able to trust that they are safe with the parent. That kind of ability to trust is, as you say, open to exploitation; but it also opens the door to experiences and a way of being which are closed off when it is gone.

    Secondly, when I learned lifesaving in water, one of the things we learnt was the need for the person being rescued to relax and trust, otherwise both would-be rescuer and rescuee may drown. Indeed we were taught a self-preservation technique for when the victim is so panicked and clingy that this is a real threat. Again the trust that the victim needs to have at that point I would characterise as childlike.

    As an adult, because we are aware of the risk of being exploited, childlike trust is less easy to come by. If we are lucky it may still be there with some people we relate to - lifelong friends, spouses etc. For me it is also there in relation to God.
    I've read that several times and yes, I see the relevance of the examples given, but I still say that trust in an adult should be adult-like, not child-like. Hmmm.

  • Yes, I think Susan hit the nail on the head in relation to "reject". It's too strong a word for many atheists. To say I lack belief in gods is different from rejecting them.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2019
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK I will go with that.
    However they reject God, not because they have tried to understand but because they are told he doesn't exist. As I said it is not all the atheists I know. Some have reasons why they don’t believe. Others are told on TV and in the media by atheistic writers that God doesn’t exist. They din’t bother questioning it. An ex dance partner of mine was like that. Just accepting without looking.

    What's to understand? There is no need for a reason to not believe. Or question that.
  • wabale wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Even though you think of them as a miracle, do you at the same timeacknowledge that they were coincidences?
    Yes. But since this happened 56 years ago and reminiscences are notoriously unreliable as evidence I have forgotten the corroborative and convincing (to me at any rate) detail! Part of it was someone I met. He was an ex-prisoner and a Christian, whom I met while working in a factory drawing office: his account of an incident that had happened to him and his family was totally off the chart, random rather than coincidence, and this was one of many things he said and did that convinced me he was the genuine article.
    This led to my life being turned upside down, including the conviction that the maker of the universe interfers in subtle ways and that prayer is a part of this. Nothing in his story actually broke the laws of physics, but as I continued to explore life as a Christian it made me more open to the idea, for example, of praying for people who are sick. Like many churches ours has a ministry team, and it’s actually people’s doctors who from time to time refer to an unexpected recovery as ‘miraculous’. On the other hand, I don’t think this activity should be taken over by the National Health Service at this point in time.

    Edited quoting code for clarity. BroJames. Purgatory Host
    I have been following a discussion elsewhere (very long -, over two years I think!) and the question of determinism or randomness is the only coherent, logical option with some arguing for wriggle room in the middle.
  • Yes, Eagleton talks about this in his book, "Reason, Faith and Revolution", that many atheists see God as a "superentity outside the universe", which leaves out the classical view (e.g., Aquinas). Well, probably, but it strikes me that the supernatural is the choke point.
    I think I agree with that last point.

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    ... However, I thought that atheists show quite a high knowledge of religion, especially those who used to be religious. There was a survey on this, is it Pew Forum?
    And the God/ Christianity that quite a decent percentage of them reject is one that a decent percentage of Christians (at least outside America) reject too.

    The quality of rhetoric needed for atheists, whether folk or card carrying, is far higher than the overwhelmingly second and third rate deluge of apologetics now. Nothing works but being nice to people and that doesn't either. Being truly incarnational, holding all things in common, is all but absolutely unheard of. So the only effective way is being born in to a faith. Above all Islam. Unfortunately there is hope for religion in general as it is overwhelmingly socially conservative and the pendulum is swinging to the racist, nationalist right all over the world for keeps. So Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy are doing well and Catholicism is holding its own in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Brazil etc. It - Christianity; other folk, traditional religions will prosper in China, Japan as in India - will continue to expand with the exploding population of Africa. What the <1% of the world who are WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic and very mainly atheist) do is neither here nor there.
    Hmmmm, yeeees but that is too pessimistic for me!

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK I will go with that.
    However they reject God, not because they have tried to understand but because they are told he doesn't exist. As I said it is not all the atheists I know. Some have reasons why they don’t believe. Others are told on TV and in the media by atheistic writers that God doesn’t exist. They din’t bother questioning it. An ex dance partner of mine was like that. Just accepting without looking.

    What's to understand? There is no need for a reason to not believe. Or question that.

    Well, that just about summarizes a hundred years of arguments, well done. My dad used to say that, why believe.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited June 2019
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK I will go with that.
    However they reject God, not because they have tried to understand but because they are told he doesn't exist. As I said it is not all the atheists I know. Some have reasons why they don’t believe. Others are told on TV and in the media by atheistic writers that God doesn’t exist. They din’t bother questioning it. An ex dance partner of mine was like that. Just accepting without looking.

    What's to understand? There is no need for a reason to not believe. Or question that.

    Well, that just about summarizes a hundred years of arguments, well done. My dad used to say that, why believe.

    Feels like it's taken me that long. I still believe of course. Despite transcendence being impossible to believe in. Because I want to. Because the claim was made by an authentically random few handsful of men and it immediately spread and mutated epidemically. Something happened that is not easily explained by social evolution, despite 1,500 years of Jewish narcissistic Messianism, by mere myth and legend, by a later priestly class. It was immediate. Like Islam. And it had and still has a trajectory of infinite grace and hope. Unlike no other creed.
Sign In or Register to comment.