The power of Christ...

[LinuxGal]

I recognize you. You're the one who bumped all the Nishant threads.

I stepped out of here from January 1 until this month and missed the poor fellow.

[Belacqua]

“The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.” 

― Soren Kierkegaard

But hey, what does Kierkegaard know about Christianity?

Perhaps Kierkengaard has something there.   Can't very well influence God if there isn't one.

The main thing to remember is that atheists are the smart people and Christians are the stupid people. It's us vs. them, and we win!

[LinuxGal]

Perhaps Kierkengaard has something there.   Can't very well influence God if there isn't one.

The main thing to remember is that atheists are the smart people and Christians are the stupid people. It's us vs. them, and we win!

Naw, there's all kinds of atheists.  Clever ones, thick ones, skinny ones, fat ones, atheists who vote funny, you name it.  The only thing we have in common is that we have made the judgment that the existence of a supreme being has not been validly demonstrated.

[Anomalocaris]

Perhaps Kierkengaard has something there.   Can't very well influence God if there isn't one.

The main thing to remember is that atheists are the smart people and Christians are the stupid people. It's us vs. them, and we win!

How can you be so stupid as not fail to heed your own advice?

[h4ym4n]

Never mind

[Vicki Q]

It occurs to me that if the Thomists are right about it being impossible for God to act against his immutable nature, then either all prayers must be granted, or no prayers can ever be granted. If God were to answer some prayers and not others, then God would be whimsical.

Therein lies the problem. Aquinas came up with the modern idea of miracle as something outside nature. In this view, God sits around all day drinking tea, occasionally popping into our world to alter something He doesn't like before putting on another brew. This is seriously misleading.

The NT view is that God is always at work mysteriously within His battered but still beautiful world, and sometimes acts in unexpected ways. The New Testament speaks of ‘powerful’ or ‘unexpected’ deeds; of ‘paradoxes’.

God’s powerful presence is everywhere within the world, the hidden text that interprets and sometimes brings healing and hope to ordinary events. The early Christians saw this kind of thing as a genuine sign, an advance anticipation, of the new creation which Isaiah promised. These are glimpses of a new creation.

Since God granting prayers is impossible on the face of it (both teams praying to win, for example), the only option left is that God never grants any prayers, ever.

Because God is not a slot machine that does what we tell Him, asking for action in a football match is not a proper or meaningful use of prayer. Unless it's Liverpool vs Man Utd, obviously.

[HappySkeptic]

Therein lies the problem. Aquinas came up with the modern idea of miracle as something outside nature. In this view, God sits around all day drinking tea, occasionally popping into our world to alter something He doesn't like before putting on another brew. This is seriously misleading.

The NT view is that God is always at work mysteriously within His battered but still beautiful world, and sometimes acts in unexpected ways. The New Testament speaks of ‘powerful’ or ‘unexpected’ deeds; of ‘paradoxes’.

God’s powerful presence is everywhere within the world, the hidden text that interprets and sometimes brings healing and hope to ordinary events. The early Christians saw this kind of thing as a genuine sign, an advance anticipation, of the new creation which Isaiah promised. These are glimpses of a new creation.

Since God granting prayers is impossible on the face of it (both teams praying to win, for example), the only option left is that God never grants any prayers, ever.

Because God is not a slot machine that does what we tell Him, asking for action in a football match is not a proper or meaningful use of prayer. Unless it's Liverpool vs Man Utd, obviously.

Either miracles are rare, or they are common.

Either miracles break natural order, or are indistinguishable from natural events.

Rare + Breaks Nature:  God's existence can't be often tested, but surely "big" events like the Holocaust would result in miracles, but none are seen.

Rare + Natural: Why imagine a God at all?
Common + Natural: How is God distingushable from nature?

Common + Breaks Nature: God's existence is verifiable, and would have been verified.  God would be part of science.  Magic would be real.

____________

Miracles are nonsense given the type of world we live in.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Either miracles are rare, or they are common.
OR they're neither.

[Vicki Q]

Either miracles are rare, or they are common.

Either miracles break natural order, or are indistinguishable from natural events.

Rare + Breaks Nature:  God's existence can't be often tested, but surely "big" events like the Holocaust would result in miracles, but none are seen.

Rare + Natural: Why imagine a God at all?
Common + Natural: How is God distingushable from nature?

Common + Breaks Nature: God's existence is verifiable, and would have been verified.  God would be part of science.  Magic would be real.
____________

Miracles are nonsense given the type of world we live in.

Thank you for the reply. Your analysis would be excellent on the classic understanding of miracle as an intervention from God from outside the natural world, but not with what I outlined. This is why I (in company of Borg, Wright and others) avoid the term 'miracle'.

God acts from within the natural order. Mostly you don't notice His action, occasionally you do. There is no natural/supernatural distinction. There are very surprising things that happen, things that signpost God, that imply a power at work. But these are nature aligning itself with God's purposes, pointing us to God, not magic tricks.

As such, they neither break the natural order, nor are indistinguishable from natural events. They are God's actions in the world, which are both common and rare.

An example. A close relative of mine had a recurring back condition which became excruciating after she got pregnant, which also meant the NHS couldn't do anything much to help. She went to a healing service at the church and the following day the pain was gone, and has stayed away.

Now granted, this could be psychosomatic or something 'normal'. But it doesn't matter if it was. We asked God for healing, and we got it.
As Temple said, “When I pray, coincidences happen; when I don’t, they don’t.”

[Fake Messiah]

Your analysis would be excellent on the classic understanding of miracle as an intervention from God from outside the natural world, but not with what I outlined. This is why I (in company of Borg, Wright and others) avoid the term 'miracle'.

You might be in company of Borg, but not Jesus. He had other ideas about miracles.

God acts from within the natural order. Mostly you don't notice His action, occasionally you do. There is no natural/supernatural distinction. There are very surprising things that happen, things that signpost God, that imply a power at work. But these are nature aligning itself with God's purposes, pointing us to God, not magic tricks.

And that is deism. You are much closer to being an atheist.