does prayer accomplish anything?
Options
Comments
-
it does not claim that ? is learning that is a stretch that open theism detractors bring up but it is not true if ? knows all that can be know then he cannot learn anything that argument make no sense. -
No because evil is not doing what ? would like, so literally if ? wills something it is good. so ? cannot will evil calamity is not the same things as evil.
1. If ? does not create evil, he is not the creator of everything.
2. One who creates calamity is evil in the moral sense. Morals per se are based on the will to create or reduce/cease suffering. Calamity = suffering, so one who creates suffering is morally injust.
First evil is not a thing but a judgement
Second creating a calamity is not in itself evil and suffering does not equal evil you are doing it again you are making jumps of logic without first understanding what evil is. Calamity = pain suffering= pain. PAIN DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL but is often an outcome of it. You can suffer and it be good you can be in a calamity and it be good. it might not feel that way but it actually is. EVIL IS DISOBEDIENCE TO ? NOT JUST FEELING PAIN. -
does prayer accomplish anything?
YES, but meditation accomplishes much more -
First evil is not a thing but a judgement
Second creating a calamity is not in itself evil and suffering does not equal evil.
True; evil is a judgement, it is subjective just the same as suffering is subjective. That's why there is no objective morality. Good and evil only exists in the minds of sentient beings but still, what I said remains true. -
it does not claim that ? is learning that is a stretch
Not really. If the open theistic ? knew all, it would be classical theism. The openness of ? , that is the ability to act on probabilities, is what distinguishes it from classical theism. In open theism, all is not possibly known by ? ; for if it were, ? 's status as the creator of all would mean that he dictates exactly what takes place to the T, which open theism disputes. In open theism, ? knows all possibilities but does not know what choices will be made until they are determined by man. Once they are determined, the openness of ? causes him to be influenced by that choice in a way which he can then respond. -
it does not claim that ? is learning that is a stretch
Not really. If the open theistic ? knew all, it would be classical theism. The openness of ? , that is the ability to act on probabilities is what distinguishes it from classical theism. In open theism, all is not possibly known by ? ; for if it were, ? 's status as the creator of all would mean that he dictates exactly what takes place to the T, which open theism disputes.
? as understood by most open theist does know all.
The disagreement is not about the perfection of Gods knowledge, both open theists and classical theists state that ? is omniscient.
? always knows everything. The debate, rather, is about the content of the reality ? perfectly knows so It comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real. to us no but to him i would say yes.
-
? as understood by most open theist does know all.
Then they're not open theists.
Open theists maintain that ? does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because ? remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than ? knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place. This is a significant redefinition of the classical doctrine of ? ’s omniscience. The open theist’s view of omniscience is that ? has complete knowledge of the past and the present, but not the future. What ? does know of the future is in reference to what he knows of “present dispositions, proclivities, inclinations, intentions and probabilities as well as they can be known.”
http://bible.org/article/examination-open-theismIt comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real. to us no but to him i would say yes.
I agree with you here and I'll tell you why: Possibilities are real to an omniscient and omnipotent ? , that is, before he makes a conscious decision on what to will into existence. When he does will something into existence, the event takes place. For mortal man it may appear that other choices were possible but in actuality, it was ? who pulled the strings and guided the direction of reality. In other words, determinism would be true when speaking of the Bible ? . For mortal man, free will is an illusion and ? is the only being with true free will. -
? as understood by most open theist does know all.
Then they're not open theists.
Open theists maintain that ? does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because ? remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than ? knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place. This is a significant redefinition of the classical doctrine of ? ’s omniscience. The open theist’s view of omniscience is that ? has complete knowledge of the past and the present, but not the future. What ? does know of the future is in reference to what he knows of “present dispositions, proclivities, inclinations, intentions and probabilities as well as they can be known.”
http://bible.org/article/examination-open-theismIt comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real. to us no but to him i would say yes.
I agree with you here and I'll tell you why: Possibilities are real to an omniscient and omnipotent ? , that is, before he makes a conscious decision on what to will into existence. When he does will something into existence, the event takes place. Right but ? does not will everything into existence For mortal man it may appear that other choices were possible RIGHT but in actuality, it was ? who pulled the strings and guided the direction of reality. WRONG In other words, determinism would be true when speaking of the Bible ? . For mortal man, free will is an illusion and ? is the only being with true free will.
wrong once again you left out of one of ? 's attributes which is love and you forget that because of it we also will things into existence. Before we do, these things they only exist to ? but not to us, so he has knowledge of them. If the article states that open theism denies that ? is omniprescient than it is also wrong. remember i said i lean toward open thesim but i don't ? out the understandings of what no man. my open theism rests on my understanding of the bible. -
Right but ? does not will everything into existence.
Then he is not the creator of all things contrary to what the Bible says.remember i said i lean toward open thesim but i don't ? out the understandings of what no man. my open theism rests on my understanding of the bible.
In other words, you define open theism as whatever you wish. -
there are different types of o.t all hold to gods omniscent power.Right but ? does not will everything into existence.
Then he is not the creator of all things contrary to what the Bible says.remember i said i lean toward open thesim but i don't ? out the understandings of what no man. my open theism rests on my understanding of the bible.
In other words, you define open theism as whatever you wish.
which I do as well but I do not hold to it based on man but scripture that was what I mean. I answered your first comment already. Have you ever heard of o.t before I told you of it? -
? does not cause all things to happen that can happen is what I mean when I say ? does not wil all in to existence.
-
-
there are different types of o.t all hold to gods omniscent power.
I've only seen one type so far and that type denies ? 's complete omniscience. That's what seperates open theism from classical theism. -
? does not cause all things to happen that can happen is what I mean when I say ? does not wil all in to existence.
Here's the problem:
You say that ? sees all events, our situations, choices and dispositions before creation. This is omniscience. Classical theism holds the view that ? knows all things about person X, including what person X will do and think and say, before person X is created. If ? creates person X, this means everything that person X does, says or thinks is what ? willed because ? created person X knowing exactly what would happen. Being omnipotent, ? had the power to change person X's situations and dispositions before he/she was created but did not. This is not taking away free will. A person can have free will and the range for free will be limited. Before you say, out of love, ? would not limit our range for free will, our range is limited every day depending on our circumstances supposedly created by ? . So, assuming ? is omnipotent and omniscient, we can conclude that all things are the way they are because they are the way ? willed them to be.
Open theism denies ? 's omniscience by stating that ? does not know what person X will do before person X actually does it. Maybe open theists recognized the inherent problem in classical theism and set out to address it so that they could keep the doctrine of free will by making a sacrifice on ? 's powers. -
keep on reading there are four major position. O.t is an idea a perspective. -
give me a link
-
Actually, I found something on wikipedia.
Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for ? because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents.
Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for ? because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker espouses this position.
Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for ? because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas espouses this position.
Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for ? because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain. Greg Boyd espouses this position."
^^^ All four types of open theism agree that the future is epistemically open for ? meaning ? does not have complete knowledge of the future. His understanding of what the future may be can only be based on probabilities and his knowledge of the past and present.
This view is also summed up here:
We believe that ? could have known every event of the future had ? decided to create a fully determined universe. However, in our view ? decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that ? chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for ? .
http://www.opentheism.info/
-
Does prayer work it depends on who your asking prayer is all in the heart, personally i feel prayer works, if i pray for something and it doesnt happen it doesnt mean ? doesnt want me to have it or he is not hearing me its just I wasent able to see his way of getting what i prayed for. Alot of people expect a big ass sign saying HERE IS WHAT YOU PRAYED FOR AND BY THE WAY ITS ? ? TO THE RESCUE for more ? nah its a thing where If you got a good heart and a alot of faith in what your saying it will come your way or you will receive signs. but if your praying with half your heart then he really doesnt see why he should answer. plus if you are only praying for something but dont respect ? on a day to day basis that like asking you distant cousin who is a millionaire for 30 racks cause u need to pay off debts and all this ? . when really u can do it yourself and he doesnt ? rock with you like dat. So IMO it works its all on you,faith and your optimism
-
So ? has a plan and ? knows all thats going to happen before it happens. And why does ? know this? Because he planned for it to happen long before we were even born.
^^^ CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY ON ? ...
Taking that logic (which is Christian logic) into account. There is no need to pray.
SELFISH PRAYER: "? please save my grandmother from cancer"
According to Christian Logic: ? gave your grandmother cancer and it is already preordained whether she will die from it or not. WHY PRAY?
non-selfish prayer: "Thank You ? for blessing me with 2 beautiful children."
According to Christian Logic: You were going to have those kids if you wanted them or not. ? already planned those kids for you.
Thus nothing is in your control. both Muslims & Christians say, "LORD WILLING" in any situation. Thus, it's the Lord's will/plan no matter what. Prayer or no prayer. Religion itself and the belief in an all-knowing, omnipotent ? renders prayer pointless.
You shut this thread down pretty fast.....I'll say this though, prayer is usually for the desperate. If someone is desperate enough to give it a shot, I say go for it. -
Yes im living proof
Ok and what about all those people who didn't get their prayers answered? Was ? just sitting on his ass then? -
Clearly you do not understand what is written there in the bible in the first place if your did we would not be having this old does freewill exist alongside ? 's omnipotence and omiscience debate.
I understand the Bible enough to know that it describes ? as omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things.? 's nature is love.
Isaiah 45:7
I make peace, and create evil? did not create all possible outcomes but they from his perspective all exist simultaneously before we have chosen them.
If ? can see reality before we (assuming we created it since you don't want to place responsibility on ? ) existed to create it, then how does it exist?? If ? is not the creator of reality, he is not the creator of everything.so in other words ? lets us choose which reality becomes actuality and judges us based on what really happened in our reality and what we don't choose never existed.
So ? did not create reality but he's just sitting back letting us do our own thing and responds based on what we do?? He's judging based on something he didn't even create?and what we don't choose never existed.
It did exist because you said earlier that ? saw it? did not create all possible outcomes but they from his perspective all exist
The Bible ? is a mean, contradictory little ? isn't he? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Clearly you do not understand what is written there in the bible in the first place if your did we would not be having this old does freewill exist alongside ? 's omnipotence and omiscience debate.
I understand the Bible enough to know that it describes ? as omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things.? 's nature is love.
Isaiah 45:7
I make peace, and create evil? did not create all possible outcomes but they from his perspective all exist simultaneously before we have chosen them.
If ? can see reality before we (assuming we created it since you don't want to place responsibility on ? ) existed to create it, then how does it exist?? If ? is not the creator of reality, he is not the creator of everything.so in other words ? lets us choose which reality becomes actuality and judges us based on what really happened in our reality and what we don't choose never existed.
So ? did not create reality but he's just sitting back letting us do our own thing and responds based on what we do?? He's judging based on something he didn't even create?and what we don't choose never existed.
It did exist because you said earlier that ? saw it? did not create all possible outcomes but they from his perspective all exist
The Bible ? is a mean, contradictory little ? isn't he?
No the ? of the bible just does not ? around. -
no it doesn't
-
Sad that people have to stoop to the level of believing in stuff like this. Shows how depressed people are that they know there only mere mortals who will live and die with nothing else left. I take solace in the fact that people are mentally strong the suicide rate would be much higher if we didn't pacify ourselves with the vices of the world.
-
Proverbs 28:9
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
^^^
The reason that so many prayers are being ignored is simply because people are ignoring The Most High's word...
