Prayer works for me. How does it work for you?

[Heathen Dawn]

I pray a lot to my Goddess and my God. As well as prayer for connecting with Them, I often come to Them with petitionary prayer for helping me in my life. I’m talking about petitionary prayer. I disbelieve in omnimax. I don’t assume omnipotence, omniscience etc anywhere, not even for the abstract, formless Creator of the universe, much less then for the individual Gods and Goddesses. Petitionary prayer works this way:


I have some difficulty
I pray to the Gods for help in this difficulty
The Gods are thus made aware of my difficulty, or at least of my need for help in it
The Gods do what They see fit to answer my prayer


Very simple, isn’t it? But if you assume omniscience for the deity, it looks like this:


You have some difficulty
God is already aware of your difficulty and your need of help in it
You pray to God for help in this difficulty
God does what has been in His mind since the beginning of time


Effectively, prayer to an omniscient deity is a waste of time. I surmise that the idea of praying to God makes sense only in a pagan, ie omnimax-rejecting, context, and that the prayer of Abrahamic monotheists is a leftover from pagan days, a vestigial organ just like the appendix. In the evolution of Deity, Yahweh was originally no different from any pagan God, and His original worshippers prayed to Him with the same thought-pattern that I go through when I pray to my Goddess and my God. But over the ages sophistication set in, and Yahweh was elevated to Only God and omnimax. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob took the attributes of the God of the Philosophers. But believers still pray, and I say this is a leftover; I say, had people taken the philosophy of classical (omnimax) monotheism to its logical conclusion, they would pray no more.

Thoughts?

[Ormly]

Well, Heathen Dawn, I suggest you find some answers because you will one day be, Heathen Sunset.

[Heathen Dawn]

Well, Heathen Dawn, I suggest you find some answers

You could have helped me in that regard but decided not to. Decided, instead, to engage in a personal jab.

Next, please!

[Ormly]

You could have helped me in that regard but decided not to. Decided, instead, to engage in a personal jab.

Next, please!
Help? Is that what you looking for? I believe your mind is made up. Where do you cry for help?

[guacamole]

I pray a lot to my Goddess and my God. As well as prayer for connecting with Them, I often come to Them with petitionary prayer for helping me in my life. I’m talking about petitionary prayer. I disbelieve in omnimax. I don’t assume omnipotence, omniscience etc anywhere, not even for the abstract, formless Creator of the universe, much less then for the individual Gods and Goddesses. Petitionary prayer works this way:

I have some difficulty
I pray to the Gods for help in this difficulty
The Gods are thus made aware of my difficulty, or at least of my need for help in it
The Gods do what They see fit to answer my prayer
My critique of this would be that if you don't believe in "omnimax" (good one!, consider that stolen...) then you are going to be hard pressed to know that God heard you and affected your circumstances. You can't know that s/he heard you because s/he isn't omniscient and you can't know that s/he helped you because s/he isn't omnipotent. It may seem slike s/he helped you but it may have been a caprice of fortune. In addition if God isn't omnipotent even if s/he heard you, s/he may have been incapable of assisting you.

Without an omniscient God you can't guarantee that God hears prayer. Without an omnipotent God you can't guarantee that God answers prayer. Without being able to guarantee that God hears and answers prayer it is impossible to make sense of a prayer life through attempting to interpret events or silences as communication for a God who may not have heard you and who may have been powerless to help.


Very simple, isn’t it? But if you assume omniscience for the deity, it looks like this:

You have some difficulty
God is already aware of your difficulty and your need of help in it
You pray to God for help in this difficulty
God does what has been in His mind since the beginning of time

Effectively, prayer to an omniscient deity is a waste of time. I surmise that the idea of praying to God makes sense only in a pagan, ie omnimax-rejecting, context, and that the prayer of Abrahamic monotheists is a leftover from pagan days, a vestigial organ just like the appendix. In the evolution of Deity, Yahweh was originally no different from any pagan God, and His original worshippers prayed to Him with the same thought-pattern that I go through when I pray to my Goddess and my God. But over the ages sophistication set in, and Yahweh was elevated to Only God and omnimax. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob took the attributes of the God of the Philosophers. But believers still pray, and I say this is a leftover; I say, had people taken the philosophy of classical (omnimax) monotheism to its logical conclusion, they would pray no more.

Thoughts?

In a Christian world view there are numerous reason why you still pray- obedience, worship, contemplation, demonstrating love for others, etc- even while acknowledging the divine attributes.

Furthermore, praying to an omniscient God is the only way you can guarantee that God will hear and praying to an omnipotent God is the only way you can guarantee that God won't be impotent to affect your circumstances. I would say that unless you know that God will hear and can act, then it is senseless to pray.

fwiw
guac.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Nice thoughts, Heathen Dawn!

I think that your post deserves closer observation for even Monotheists who believe in Ominscent God.

At first i want to post my assumption: I believe, that there is only one God, and while different people are praying to different Gods, actually only one (supreme) God is the one controlling the situation. Of course this assumption is debatable.

I’m talking about petitionary prayer.

Ok, let's limit the answer to petitionary prayer then, because there are many forms of prayers: thanksgiving, communication with God, etc.


But if you assume omniscience for the deity, it looks like this:


You have some difficulty
God is already aware of your difficulty and your need of help in it
You pray to God for help in this difficulty
God does what has been in His mind since the beginning of time

and




Effectively, prayer to an omniscient deity is a waste of time. I surmise that the idea of praying to God makes sense only in a pagan



Jesus actually made similar statement while teaching His disciples to pray. He said not to speak much as pagans do, because they think that they will be heard due lot of talk in prayer. He also said, that your Father knows what you need before you pray. But then He continues and teaches them Our Lord's prayer, what has some petition prayer elements in it.


It's actually hard to say why He taught them to ask for things (even if it's short asking, not begging with lot of words). Maybe because when we speak out our prayer request, and get answered, we remember better that God did it. If the thing we ask for remains only in our heart and is not worded out, maybe we remember less from where the answer comes. I dunno. Maybe it's more for us, why we still petitionary pray. God does not need it.



What gives me some practical conclusions:
We still word out our petitions, but we are not begging. Usually we don't need to repeat the same petition, but in other times we just thank God that He already knows that we need it and in one way or another He provides what we need (not always what we wish). Or we might just give up asking some things, and thank God that He is providing the way anyway.


What gives great value to your post in Christian viewpoint is that sometimes Christians act in prayer like they were beggards and God would be big millionare boss who walks by on street and they desperately want some cents to be dropped to their hat before the big boss walks on.

[Heathen Dawn]

"omnimax" (good one!, consider that stolen...)

It’s a very old one and not my original at all. And it’s “copied,” not “stolen,” but I digress…

You can't know that s/he heard you because s/he isn't omniscient

The Gods don’t need to be omniscient to hear my prayer, all They need is better ears than we humans have. Which I believe They have, since, although They have human form, They are made not of natural but of supernatural substance.

and you can't know that s/he helped you because s/he isn't omnipotent.

And They don’t need to be omnipotent, all They need is to have power over chance events, over nature, to be more powerful than we humans are. Which I believe They are, else I wouldn’t call Them Gods.

It may seem slike s/he helped you but it may have been a caprice of fortune.

Whatever concerns the Big Picture, apart from the laws of the cosmos (gravity etc), the Gods are in control of that. No room for caprice.

In addition if God isn't omnipotent even if s/he heard you, s/he may have been incapable of assisting you.

Whatever is beyond Their capabilities isn’t something I’d pray for. As for their capabilities: They are capable of raising the dead.

Without an omniscient God you can't guarantee that God hears prayer. Without an omnipotent God you can't guarantee that God answers prayer.

I’ve tried to clear the objections to my prayer. But now I would like to know the utility of prayer in a scenario where the deity knows your needs even before you’ve prayed. You do not have to tell Him you need a raise from your boss, as He knows that already.

In a Christian world view there are numerous reason why you still pray- obedience, worship, contemplation, demonstrating love for others, etc- even while acknowledging the divine attributes.

I don’t deny those reasons. I too pray to my Goddess and God for connection and not just petition. But praying as a means of connection alone is nothing uniquely theistic; Deists and pantheists can do that too, without contradiction to their beliefs. The theist, in contrast, believes in prayer that can move a deity to make changes in the real world (compare Psalms 3:7).

At first i want to post my assumption: I believe, that there is only one God, and while different people are praying to different Gods, actually only one (supreme) God is the one controlling the situation.

I believe there is both one Creator-God and many Gods and Goddesses. The one Creator-God is real and the many Gods and Goddesses are real and each distinct, and the Gods and Goddesses are the anthropomorphic images or spectral colours of the one Creator-God.

Ok, let's limit the answer to petitionary prayer then, because there are many forms of prayers: thanksgiving, communication with God, etc.

Yes. My point is that the other forms of prayer are less affected, or not at all, by the issue of God’s omniscience.

He also said, that your Father knows what you need before you pray. But then He continues and teaches them Our Lord's prayer, what has some petition prayer elements in it.

Then either this is a contradiction, or the Lord’s Prayer, even in its petitionary elements, is wholly for remembrance—for humans to remember God, and not for God to be petitioned by humans to work changes in reality.

What gives great value to your post in Christian viewpoint is that sometimes Christians act in prayer like they were beggards and God would be big millionare boss who walks by on street and they desperately want some cents to be dropped to their hat before the big boss walks on.

You are, in effect, agreeing with Voltaire (Deist) that petitionary prayer is a waste of time. Your position is admirable, it is the taking of omnimax theology to its logical conclusion; but then it is (like omnimax theology) a departure from primordial theism. Which is what I’ve held all along. The road started by the Jews leads to more and more dehydration of theism, and finally to atheism.

[guacamole]

The Gods don’t need to be omniscient to hear my prayer, all They need is better ears than we humans have. Which I believe They have, since, although They have human form, They are made not of natural but of supernatural substance.

Correct. They don't need to be omniscient to hear prayer. However you cannot guarantee that hearing unless they are so. I suppose you could argue that they are all hearing (I would argue that all seeing, and all calculating to figure the ramifications logically flow in addition from that). :shrug: Who am I to stop ya from swapping out one omnimax trait for another?


And They don’t need to be omnipotent, all They need is to have power over chance events, over nature, to be more powerful than we humans are. Which I believe They are, else I wouldn’t call Them Gods.

Like Superman? Seriously. I don't mean that flippantly. Are the Gods simply like humans only superlatively so?


Whatever concerns the Big Picture, apart from the laws of the cosmos (gravity etc), the Gods are in control of that. No room for caprice.

It would seem like that if the Gods are in control of chance events and nature then they pretty much have the laws of the cosmos, if not under their control, then at their whim. You have Gods that are practically omnipotent- that is omnipotent but for the assignation of the attribute. It seems to me that you're objections aren't to "omnimax" per se- you readily appropriate some of the principle traits of it- but to foreknowledge.


Whatever is beyond Their capabilities isn’t something I’d pray for. As for their capabilities: They are capable of raising the dead.

What would be something beyond the capacity of the Gods for which you wouldn't pray?


I’ve tried to clear the objections to my prayer.

IMO (and you may disagree) you're still faced with a difficulty in navigating a prayerlife where the Gods may or may not hear you (unless you appropriate those omnimax traits which allow it) or in which they may or may not be capable of helping you (since you admit that there are somethings over which they are impotent). Unless you can guarantee being heard and [/i]guarantee[/i] diving potency then you cannot ascertain wether or not your prayers are being heard or acted upon. The only way I can around this is the acceptance of some omnimax traits.


But now I would like to know the utility of prayer in a scenario where the deity knows your needs even before you’ve prayed. You do not have to tell Him you need a raise from your boss, as He knows that already.

Okay fine, you cornered me. Correct. You don't need to tell someone something he already knows. Apart from the other things I mentioned about prayer, there is no reason to tell God. He knows. He is already taking care of it. Do I still ask for things? Yep. I'm a puny mortal, that's what I do, I ask for things :teeth:. So I wouldn't say that the act of petitionary prayer is useless- redundant maybe, but far from useless, if for no one other than myself.



You are, in effect, agreeing with Voltaire (Deist) that petitionary prayer is a waste of time. Your position is admirable, it is the taking of omnimax theology to its logical conclusion; but then it is (like omnimax theology) a departure from primordial theism. Which is what I’ve held all along. The road started by the Jews leads to more and more dehydration of theism, and finally to atheism.
I agree. The logical development of the attributes of God often results in a way of thinking that very similar to atheism in some ways. We arive at some spots that are similar, but very very different in certain respects. I wouldn't blame the Jews however- I think the OT is replete with echoes of that primordial theism you talk about: Moses is able to change God's mind by begging God not to destroy the people, God "repents" of actions that he has taken, David fasts and abases himself because he believes that while his son still lives there is a chance that he can get God to change his mind. (grumble. If you want references it will take a while...) I think if you are looking for culprits who lead theists away from primordial theism there are a coupla Greeks (and no doubt the christians who adopted the dialogues as a clarification of some theological points) who come to mind.

Some Christians have tried to turn this around (wrongly, imo). Open View Theism may interest you from the standpoint that it is a Christianity with a very very different working out of foreknowledge. It probably would be good for you to get someone who subscribes to it to expound on it however.

fwiw
guac.

[Heathen Dawn]

I suppose you could argue that they are all hearing

I don’t argue that. I argue that words pass more easily for supernatural beings than for us who are in the natural realm.

Like Superman? Seriously. I don't mean that flippantly. Are the Gods simply like humans only superlatively so?

They have human form and personalities like us. But They are eternal fore (ie pre-existent) as well as immortal, and They have command over natural phenomena. I believe Thor really does make thunder and lightning.

It would seem like that if the Gods are in control of chance events and nature then they pretty much have the laws of the cosmos, if not under their control, then at their whim. You have Gods that are practically omnipotent- that is omnipotent but for the assignation of the attribute.

They control much but not all. They can’t, for example, make a person disappear just like that, with the snap of the fingers. Their miracles, if They work Them, are always some working on the template of the laws of nature (such as reversal in the case of raising the dead), but never anything outside that template.

It seems to me that you're objections aren't to "omnimax" per se- you readily appropriate some of the principle traits of it- but to foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge is part of the problem. It is incompatible with ability to answer prayer, and it is incompatible with the ability to learn new things—so that, in effect, it precludes omnipotence. And if God holds the entire plan of events in His mind, then He cannot change the plan, because changing a plan requires the existence of a past–present–future distinction.

What would be something beyond the capacity of the Gods for which you wouldn't pray?

For example, I’d never pray for a loaf of bread to fall onto me out of the sky, for the simple reason that there are no loaves of bread in the sky.

IMO (and you may disagree) you're still faced with a difficulty in navigating a prayerlife where the Gods may or may not hear you (unless you appropriate those omnimax traits which allow it) or in which they may or may not be capable of helping you (since you admit that there are somethings over which they are impotent). Unless you can guarantee being heard and guarantee diving potency then you cannot ascertain wether or not your prayers are being heard or acted upon. The only way I can around this is the acceptance of some omnimax traits.

I have to say I agree with you: under my premises, a full guarantee is impossible. But some of my prayers have been answered, so I believe in the power of prayer.

Okay fine, you cornered me. Correct. You don't need to tell someone something he already knows. Apart from the other things I mentioned about prayer, there is no reason to tell God. He knows. He is already taking care of it. Do I still ask for things? Yep. I'm a puny mortal, that's what I do, I ask for things . So I wouldn't say that the act of petitionary prayer is useless- redundant maybe, but far from useless, if for no one other than myself.

This brings me to my thoughts on Psalms 3:7. We have there King David praying to God for help against his enemies. What can we make of it? Perhaps King David didn’t believe in God’s foreknowledge? Or perhaps he did, but, as with many omiscience-holding monotheists today, the praying reflex has remained as a living fossil.

I think the OT is replete with echoes of that primordial theism you talk about: Moses is able to change God's mind by begging God not to destroy the people, God "repents" of actions that he has taken, David fasts and abases himself because he believes that while his son still lives there is a chance that he can get God to change his mind.

I think if you are looking for culprits who lead theists away from primordial theism there are a coupla Greeks (and no doubt the christians who adopted the dialogues as a clarification of some theological points) who come to mind.

The Greeks indeed. The Aristotelian God, the God of Philosophers, is a different one than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The OT idea of God seems so simple, and so close to my own pagan one. Then, through ages of development, there is an attempt to merge Yahweh with the Aristotelian God. It has succeeded for the most part, but the stitches of the operation still show.

Then again, I admit I am one step away from that primordial theism: I believe in one abstract, formless, incorporeal, omnipresent, infinite Creator-God. I still retain the belief in anthropomorphic, time-bound deities, but if you want to look at those coelacanths who, in our day and age, still hold to a completely unphilosophised concept of Deity, then there are the hard polytheists—pagans who hold exactly the same theology as was extant 5,000 years ago, without any sophistications. Or the Mormons, who are a throwback into Old Testament henotheism.

Some Christians have tried to turn this around (wrongly, imo). Open View Theism may interest you from the standpoint that it is a Christianity with a very very different working out of foreknowledge. It probably would be good for you to get someone who subscribes to it to expound on it however.

I was wondering if Open View Theism would figure into this debate.

[guacamole]

This brings me to my thoughts on Psalms 3:7. We have there King David praying to God for help against his enemies. What can we make of it? Perhaps King David didn’t believe in God’s foreknowledge? Or perhaps he did, but, as with many omiscience-holding monotheists today, the praying reflex has remained as a living fossil.

It could be that King David didn't believe in foreknowledge the way we think of it- or it could be that the standard state of most theists is the "primordial" or "open view". I personally would argue that David believed God could change his mind due to the stories he would have known.

Here's the episode about him fasting for his infant son by adultery with Bathsheba:



15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."

19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.

"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.

21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"

22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."




The Greeks indeed. The Aristotelian God, the God of Philosophers, is a different one than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The OT idea of God seems so simple, and so close to my own pagan one. Then, through ages of development, there is an attempt to merge Yahweh with the Aristotelian God. It has succeeded for the most part, but the stitches of the operation still show.

I agree to an extent, although I think of it as a continuation in revelation rather than a replacement or a syncretistic addition...


I was wondering if Open View Theism would figure into this debate.
Let's see if I can find anyone to comment on it. Let's also see if anyone can find anything Jesus had to say about it.

I'll be back in a bit...

[Cyrus of Persia]

but then it is (like omnimax theology) a departure from primordial theism. Which is what I’ve held all along. The road started by the Jews leads to more and more dehydration of theism, and finally to atheism.
Well, but your own case shows that this road doesn't need nessessarily to end up with atheism (of course if you don't plan to end up with atheism). You still are believing in God/Gods.

I have always believed that someone intelligent enough started with this world, so it has not came into being by accident. Also i have believed that unintelligent (or lifeless) matter cannot develop into intelligent (or alive) beings like microbs, plants, animals and humans.

This is why i have never doubt that God exist (in whatever form, or image, it's irrelevant).

This is why i don't think that i will end up with atheism one day (if nothing bad happens). But yes, i have left the garden of conservative theism (or Christianity) long time ago (although i keep both conservative and liberal elements in my beliefs depending what seems to me more believeable, and what seems less).

[Heathen Dawn]

Well, but your own case shows that this road doesn't need nessessarily to end up with atheism (of course if you don't plan to end up with atheism). You still are believing in God/Gods.

My case was the other way round: I’m an ex-atheist, and I made the way from atheism to Deism to paganism (with a small excursion to Jewish monotheism in the middle, which I dropped because of, inter alia, the omnimax problem).

I have always believed that someone intelligent enough started with this world, so it has not came into being by accident. Also i have believed that unintelligent (or lifeless) matter cannot develop into intelligent (or alive) beings like microbs, plants, animals and humans.

I have no problem with evolution. Not only don’t I find it irreconcilable with any sort of theism, but it actually meshes very well with my own theology. I believe matter can have evolved into intelligent life like us by virtue of having been programmed to do so by the Creator in the first place. Now the universe appearing just like that, with all its governing laws, without any intelligence behind it—that’s where I have my major beef with atheists. I’m a cosmological creationist through and through.

This is why i don't think that i will end up with atheism one day (if nothing bad happens). But yes, i have left the garden of conservative theism (or Christianity) long time ago (although i keep both conservative and liberal elements in my beliefs depending what seems to me more believeable, and what seems less).

At the most advanced stage of philosophising God out of existence, what happens is what Albert Einstein did: he redefined the word “God” to be synonymous with the laws of physics. I think atheist Richard Dawkins came up with the most pertinent criticism of that: he said, if the meaning of God is so redefined, then there is no word left for a being who creates the universe, controls nature, performs miracles and forgives sins. Indeed, the Postmod-God is, for our practical lives, no better than having no God at all. Antony Flew just changed his thoughts on a small matter (origins), but his practical life and way of thinking is the same as when he was an atheist.

[guacamole]

It took a while for me to get to this but I thought that you guys might find this interesting:


[1] When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, "Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."
[2] And Aaron said to them, "Take off the rings of gold which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me."
[3] So all the people took off the rings of gold which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron.
[4] And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"
[5] When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD."
[6] And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
[7] And the LORD said to Moses, "Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves;
[8] they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, `These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'"
[9] And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people;
[10] now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation."
[11] But Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does thy wrath burn hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
[12] Why should the Egyptians say, `With evil intent did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
[13] Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and didst say to them, `I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it for ever.'"
[14] And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.

The logical questions:

Did the prayer of Moses on behalf of the people in Exodus 32 change the mind of an omniscient, sovereign, immutable God?

So, when God told Moses that "I will destroy these people," even if Moses had not prayed, God would not have destroyed the people?

Here's a fairly typical fast-n-loose answer:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-T-9.htm

I'm still working on the stuff about Jesus...

in a bit,
guac.

[Heathen Dawn]

The logical questions:

Did the prayer of Moses on behalf of the people in Exodus 32 change the mind of an omniscient, sovereign, immutable God?

So, when God told Moses that "I will destroy these people," even if Moses had not prayed, God would not have destroyed the people?

Here's a fairly typical fast-n-loose answer:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-T-9.htm

Thanks, I’ve just taken a peek:

Answer

No. No, it did not change His mind. What you have to understand in the scripture is, that God relates to us in human terms. Okay? In other words, when it says, "It repented that He made man." Did God really repent? No! But, we understand that, that means that on the surface it appears as though God was sorry about something that He had done. He felt sorry that He even made man. What that means is that God is not ipso facto, saying, "I am sorry I made man" like He did something wrong. But He is relating to us in a human emotion that helps us identify with what God was feeling when He saw people turning their back on Him. Okay?

IMO it sounds strained. It goes against the plain reading of the text. It’s eisegesis.

[Cyrus of Persia]

The picture of God in OT is imperfect. Even in NT we can only get some glimpse of Him by how Jesus described Him.

In OT picture of God (notice my word "picture". Picture is not real thing, but symbol of the real thing) He is more similar to those Gods who really need to be petitioned with prayers, because it might be that they change their mind after all.

[guacamole]

The picture of God in OT is imperfect. Even in NT we can only get some glimpse of Him by how Jesus described Him.

In OT picture of God (notice my word "picture". Picture is not real thing, but symbol of the real thing) He is more similar to those Gods who really need to be petitioned with prayers, because it might be that they change their mind after all.
I agree. IMO, it's the problem with getting tied into a specific strict conservative reading of the OT. Unless you are into OVT then you are faced with a difficult contradiction.

[Sacrificial Ram]

The picture of God in OT is imperfect. Even in NT we can only get some glimpse of Him by how Jesus described Him.

In OT picture of God (notice my word "picture". Picture is not real thing, but symbol of the real thing) He is more similar to those Gods who really need to be petitioned with prayers, because it might be that they change their mind after all.
A typical Jewish attitude is that God has not changed, but rather peoples understanding of God is what changed.

[Heathen Dawn]

The picture of God in OT is imperfect.

I’d say unsophisticated, ie closer to paganism.

Even in NT we can only get some glimpse of Him by how Jesus described Him.

The NT goes more philosophical with “God is Spirit”—Aristo’s Unmoved Mover, the God of the Philosophers. Yet the NT gives an anthropomorphic image of God to relate to: Jesus Christ (cf 2 Cor 4:4 and Col 1:15). The Christian God is a composite of three principles: Father of Light (God the Father), Anthropomorphic Image (God the Son) and Indwelling Spirit (God the Holy Spirit).

In OT picture of God (notice my word "picture". Picture is not real thing, but symbol of the real thing) He is more similar to those Gods who really need to be petitioned with prayers, because it might be that they change their mind after all.

I think it is because the writers of the OT truly believed such things about their God. The OT God is a pagan God with a few superlatives tagged on (for henotheism). The Mormons still believe as OT Hebrews did.

A typical Jewish attitude is that God has not changed, but rather peoples understanding of God is what changed.

This is progressive revelation and it is the core teaching of Baha’ism. The Baha’i concept of God is free of all anthropomorphism. I consider this evolution, but it comes at a price: the loss of the ability to form a personal relationship with God (since God is no longer believed to be a person). Interestingly, I ran into the same kind of progressive idea when I was reading Spiritualist writings (http://www.geocities.com/spirit_teachings/creed.htm#four). I was fascinated by the Spiritualist concept of God at first, but then it wore off, and I realised this so very advanced idea of God was that of a God who can’t be with me when I need Him. It was then that I began to investigate paganism as a branch of theism as well as nature-worship.

[Cyrus of Persia]

This is progressive revelation and it is the core teaching of Baha’ism. The Baha’i concept of God is free of all anthropomorphism. I consider this evolution, but it comes at a price: the loss of the ability to form a personal relationship with God (since God is no longer believed to be a person).
It's :offtopic:, but i will comment it anyway.

Even in Judaism the same thing happened. When in early Judaism they believed that God does all (brings good, and evil, darkness and light, etc), then later they saw God more and more "out there". God was more and more understood as not involved in "earthly affairs" and in His replace they started to talk about angels and demons (or Satan) who caused things. I think the Ecclesiastics with his pessimism shows it pretty well how "out there" (or transendent) God was according to their understanding. Then Jesus came to show that God is still actively involved with humanity (His immanence).

[Thedonhopeless]

Well, prayer is a human need to draw close to God. It is not to change the mind of God,prayer is to change your mind, to transform your own mind from wordly things to heavnely things. God does know what you will pray, and what you need, and what you shall ask of HIm, he already has an answer, which he gives in your life slwoly or quickly ect, but the point to pray it anyways is to keep a close communication with God. The bible says seek you first the kingdom of God, and all else will fall into place. Prayer is first and foremost in all things.

Example: YOu pray to God for a new Job. he already knows you need one, but the prayer does two things: it fortifies your faith and knowledge you need God in your life, second, when you go about your day , you keep God in your mind and heart as you seek a new job, that you do all things to glorify him and let his wil be done. If these two things are not present, you may miss the will of God and end up with a job that you choose, not God. Then when you are presented with jobs, you prayer even more if these jobs are God's will, and when you find oen that is, you thank him, which acknowledges His presence.

Prayer is soley for you edification and a conduit to God's will.

Unlike your pagan gods, who you will never know if it is their wil and the right job. Unless you assuem any job you pick up is them answerign your prayer. The benfit of my God is that he has a plan for me, and I know that the job I do find is part of His wil, not just soem arbitrary job he gave me cause I need money.

[Heathen Dawn]

It is not to change the mind of God,prayer is to change your mind,

That is innovation. I wonder if even the people of the OT thought that way.

Unlike your pagan gods, who you will never know if it is their wil and the right job.

Or so you think.

[Thedonhopeless]

That is innovation. I wonder if even the people of the OT thought that way. its not innovation at all. Whether those of the OT thought that way or not, prayer is to align yourself with God's wil.



Or so you think. Just going by what you said in the OP

[Heathen Dawn]

its not innovation at all. Whether those of the OT thought that way or not, prayer is to align yourself with God's wil.

Prayer was originally asking God to do something. It was originally a petition for influencing God. Your concept of prayer is one step away from the original thing. I’m not saying your concept of prayer has no basis in reality, in fact I don’t always pray to my Gods to ask Them something, I pray to Them to connect with Them as well, without asking anything; but the oldest belief was the prayers could actually persuade God to do something, to change His mind about something etc.

Just going by what you said in the OP

Where does my OP say I’m not confident in the will of my Gods? I’m confident just as you are of your God that my Gods will answer my prayers in the best way. I’ve had quite a few unanswered prayers from the Gods, and I have no problem accepting that they are unanswered because the Gods don’t see it good for me to answer those particular prayers.