What's the Point of Prayer?

[POI]

In regards to the following verses -- Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23....

What do they really mean? I've debated many theists, and get a whole mess of conflicting answers. It will likely be no surprise if that continues here. After some thought, here are some findings...

1. All prayer is pointless, as any "answered prayer" would merely mean, <at best>, that it already aligned with God's will. Why? Because you cannot make God change His will. But this seems to go against all the verses listed above.

2. Ignore the above! God answers all prayer with a (yes, no, or later). His answer, of course, would be "no" if you are asking God to commit a 'sin.' But if this option is the case, I guess he will always say no to the requests of restoring lost limbs, reversing cerebral palsy, and downs syndrome. Why? Because they will die with these conditions, which means they remained unfulfilled until natural death. But this seems to go against all the verses listed above, as there really exists no such caveats....?

3. Ignore choices 1. and 2.! Prayer is only meant for giving thanks, other. God is not a slot machine! But this seems to go against all the verses listed above.

I'm sure there exists a plethora of other explanations........ You get the gist....

For Debate:

What is the point of prayer? I guess we can start here, and see where this goes....

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #77]

Remember what I asked prior.... How in the heck does someone prove that something cannot happen? But I guess I'm still caught up in the web of trying to prove a negative here... Go figure....

It is not about you proving God doesn't answer prayers. Rather, I am offering a reason or reasons why if God exist it might not be pointless to pray.

If God doesn't exist, then yeah, it is probably pointless to pray.

(ME) Here's an idea, bring this relic to a children's cancer center, and let's let the healing begin. Oh, wait a minute, then we might start to think god exists. Nevermind.

This assumes God wills to heal everyone. There could be many reasons he does choose to such as we reap what we sow.

Here is something to consider. I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine about reincarnation. He said because purgatory is not in time, it is possible that reincarnation is part of purgatory. Those that still have not overcome evil by the grace of God are reincarnated to try again.

If this is the case, then it gives even more reason why so many are not healed because their suffering is part of their purgatory. The bible says you reap what you sow, so if you sow suffering then you reap suffering, and this would extend to purgatory.

So it could be that many people living on earth are actually living through their purgatory thus are not healed for they reap what they sow.

Same old problem; you can invent anything you like to get over problems, just as purgatory was invented to get over those particular problems. Remember Limbo? Invented by the popacy to get over the problem of Babies born in sin and dying before they ever heard of Jesus? At least until they threw Limbo in the bin and declared that babies were sinless and went to heaven, and never mind about purgatory or even the doctrine of Sin -death because they knew that human morals were better and they had to get in line with it or lose any remaining credibility they had.

Cue pettifogging doctrinal quibbles about that whole doctrine.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #77]

Remember what I asked prior.... How in the heck does someone prove that something cannot happen? But I guess I'm still caught up in the web of trying to prove a negative here... Go figure....

It is not about you proving God doesn't answer prayers. Rather, I am offering a reason or reasons why if God exist it might not be pointless to pray.

If God doesn't exist, then yeah, it is probably pointless to pray.

(ME) Here's an idea, bring this relic to a children's cancer center, and let's let the healing begin. Oh, wait a minute, then we might start to think god exists. Nevermind.

This assumes God wills to heal everyone. There could be many reasons he does choose to such as we reap what we sow.

Here is something to consider. I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine about reincarnation. He said because purgatory is not in time, it is possible that reincarnation is part of purgatory. Those that still have not overcome evil by the grace of God are reincarnated to try again.

If this is the case, then it gives even more reason why so many are not healed because their suffering is part of their purgatory. The bible says you reap what you sow, so if you sow suffering then you reap suffering, and this would extend to purgatory.

So it could be that many people living on earth are actually living through their purgatory thus are not healed for they reap what they sow.

Same old problem; you can invent anything you like to get over problems, just as purgatory was invented to get over those particular problems. Remember Limbo? Invented by the popacy to get over the problem of Babies born in sin and dying before they ever heard of Jesus? At least until they threw Limbo in the bin and declared that babies were sinless and went to heaven, and never mind about purgatory or even the doctrine of Sin -death because they knew that human morals were better and they had to get in line with it or lose any remaining credibility they had.

Cue pettifogging doctrinal quibbles about that whole doctrine.

That is not accurate about Limbo. The church never changed their minds about it because it was never a doctrine by the magisterium. Rather, it was an interpretation of doctrines, namely that only
those guilty of mortal sin go to hell and that you must be baptised to enter the kingdom of heaven as Jesus proclaimed.

If an infant dies without baptism, where do they go? It seems that cannot go to either hell or heaven.

So Augustine concluded they must go to the upper hell. He said also that this hell cannot be that bad as he said it is better that they existed and go to hell than to never have existed. In other words, if this hell were so bad it would be better they never existed, but he says it is good they existed. BTW, hell is not necessarily some place of fire.

Aquinas said, no, that go to upper hell but there is no pain or suffering at all. They only never receive the beatific vision of God.

Others said, yes, that seems right, but it should not be in hell but between heaven and hell and called it limbo. This was at one point mentioned in the catechism as an interpretation. They changed it in the 90s to that because we cannot know, instead it reads that we hope God makes a way for them in heaven.

Others argue for that very fact. How these babies go to heaven. They say that if the parents intended to baptize the child and the child dies before baptism, then their parent's intentions count toward the child's baptism.

Anyway, the point is, limbo was never something any catholic had to believe in. It is merely an interpretation of the doctrines I mentioned.

Limbo is more like string theory. It is an interesting interpretation of physics but it is not an official scientific valid theory.

[brunumb]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #82]

It doesn't matter anyway. It's all just made up stuff about other made up stuff.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #82]

It doesn't matter anyway. It's all just made up stuff about other made up stuff.

That is one opinion that I have not seen enough evidence to accept. If someone one day shows me enough evidence to the contrary, then I would stop believing.

[POI]

It is not about you proving God doesn't answer prayers. Rather, I am offering a reason or reasons why if God exist it might not be pointless to pray.

Well, the most reasonable assumption/conclusion, is....

It is pointless to pray because He is not there--- as most of your prayers are NOT answered with a (yes). And the rest of these so-called <answered prayers> are likely coincidence/human intervention/nature.

And the most reasonable assumption/conclusion, if there is such a god would be:

It is pointless to pray because you cannot change His will. If He's going to give you something, it is already in His will to give you something, He's not going to wait to see if you ask for it, or not

This assumes God wills to heal everyone. There could be many reasons he does choose to such as we reap what we sow.

Honestly... If anyone thought this relic had any influence at all, this relic would be brought to any/all locations for the (faith/hope) that some will be healed.

Here is something to consider.

Why consider the unlikely? You are grasping at straws....

I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine about reincarnation. He said because purgatory is not in time, it is possible that reincarnation is part of purgatory. Those that still have not overcome evil by the grace of God are reincarnated to try again.

If this is the case, then it gives even more reason why so many are not healed because their suffering is part of their purgatory. The bible says you reap what you sow, so if you sow suffering then you reap suffering, and this would extend to purgatory.

So it could be that many people living on earth are actually living through their purgatory thus are not healed for they reap what they sow.

Kool

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #85]

It is pointless to pray because you cannot change His will. If He's going to give you something, it is already in His will to give you something, He's not going to wait to see if you ask for it, or not

God is not going to force himself upon you, so you will have to ask or you will not receive.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #77]

Remember what I asked prior.... How in the heck does someone prove that something cannot happen? But I guess I'm still caught up in the web of trying to prove a negative here... Go figure....

It is not about you proving God doesn't answer prayers. Rather, I am offering a reason or reasons why if God exist it might not be pointless to pray.

If God doesn't exist, then yeah, it is probably pointless to pray.

(ME) Here's an idea, bring this relic to a children's cancer center, and let's let the healing begin. Oh, wait a minute, then we might start to think god exists. Nevermind.

This assumes God wills to heal everyone. There could be many reasons he does choose to such as we reap what we sow.

Here is something to consider. I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine about reincarnation. He said because purgatory is not in time, it is possible that reincarnation is part of purgatory. Those that still have not overcome evil by the grace of God are reincarnated to try again.

If this is the case, then it gives even more reason why so many are not healed because their suffering is part of their purgatory. The bible says you reap what you sow, so if you sow suffering then you reap suffering, and this would extend to purgatory.

So it could be that many people living on earth are actually living through their purgatory thus are not healed for they reap what they sow.

Same old problem; you can invent anything you like to get over problems, just as purgatory was invented to get over those particular problems. Remember Limbo? Invented by the popacy to get over the problem of Babies born in sin and dying before they ever heard of Jesus? At least until they threw Limbo in the bin and declared that babies were sinless and went to heaven, and never mind about purgatory or even the doctrine of Sin -death because they knew that human morals were better and they had to get in line with it or lose any remaining credibility they had.

Cue pettifogging doctrinal quibbles about that whole doctrine.

That is not accurate about Limbo. The church never changed their minds about it because it was never a doctrine by the magisterium. Rather, it was an interpretation of doctrines, namely that only
those guilty of mortal sin go to hell and that you must be baptised to enter the kingdom of heaven as Jesus proclaimed.

If an infant dies without baptism, where do they go? It seems that cannot go to either hell or heaven.

So Augustine concluded they must go to the upper hell. He said also that this hell cannot be that bad as he said it is better that they existed and go to hell than to never have existed. In other words, if this hell were so bad it would be better they never existed, but he says it is good they existed. BTW, hell is not necessarily some place of fire.

Aquinas said, no, that go to upper hell but there is no pain or suffering at all. They only never receive the beatific vision of God.

Others said, yes, that seems right, but it should not be in hell but between heaven and hell and called it limbo. This was at one point mentioned in the catechism as an interpretation. They changed it in the 90s to that because we cannot know, instead it reads that we hope God makes a way for them in heaven.

Others argue for that very fact. How these babies go to heaven. They say that if the parents intended to baptize the child and the child dies before baptism, then their parent's intentions count toward the child's baptism.

Anyway, the point is, limbo was never something any catholic had to believe in. It is merely an interpretation of the doctrines I mentioned.

Limbo is more like string theory. It is an interesting interpretation of physics but it is not an official scientific valid theory.

That's irrelevant. I don't care whether Limbo was declared an article of faith in a papal encyclical or just a few cardinals proposed it as a way of getting over a problem with original sin -death; it is immoral to propose that people are born deserving of damnation. Because this was so evidently immoral, Purgatory was invented (so far as I know it was never part of early Christianity( and Limbo is simply some similar excuse applied to babies born, necessarily, sinful and deserving of damnation because that's the doctrine of sin - death. So my understanding (and feel free to correct me if it's wrong) is that purgatory is still in place for those who may be saved (though it merely kicks the hell -problem down the road) and Limbo was a proposal that was more of a church apologetic than anyone else's and that has been dropped as babies are now regarded as sinless, which sounds like denying original sin for reasons of not losing moral credibility.

P.s wiki on Purgatory. Recent "The Catholic Church has included in its teaching the idea of a purgatory rather as a condition than a place. On 4 August 1999, Pope John Paul II, speaking of purgatory, said: "The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection as "a condition of existence".[11]
Similarly in 2011, Pope Benedict XVI, speaking of Saint Catherine of Genoa (14471510) in relation to purgatory, said that "In her day it was depicted mainly using images linked to space: a certain space was conceived of in which purgatory was supposed to be located. Catherine, however, did not see purgatory as a scene in the bowels of the earth: for her it is not an exterior but rather an interior fire. This is purgatory: an inner fire."[12]"

Obviously in an attempt to make the doctrine more palatable, God decided to give us anaesthetic before he started pulling our fingernails out to punish us for not being the right kind of believers.

As to Limbo, Wiki has this:

On 20 April 2007,[35] the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."[11] After tracing the history of the various opinions that have been and are held on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, including that connected with the theory of the Limbo of Infants, and after examining the theological arguments, the document stated its conclusion as follows:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[36] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.[37]

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that he considers it consistent with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.[35] Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[38] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.[35] The traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism."

The Wiki article is worth reading entire, but earlier pronouncements add little other than pious hopes of the 'God knows best' kind.

I've sorta lost track on how we got onto this from prayer, but one quote in the article implied that God could break His own laws, which raises the question, why didn't he just do so, instead of making a sin - death sacrifice necessary - while still leaving sin -death in place but just making a loophole for party members, as that is what saves, not (as is somehow peddled) deeds. As usual; 'God knows best'. This no longer answers, which is why some reject Hellthreat altogether, or even religious doctrine.

[POI]

God is not going to force himself upon you, so you will have to ask or you will not receive.

Great. Let's go ahead and recap here about this apparent 'god':

1) God waits for you to ask. But if you ask Him to cure an incurable condition, He's not going to; unless you live in the Ozarks or Timbuktu, and are extremely poor and are unable to report the event for investigation. Why? Because He does not want His presence too known.

2) When I asked Him for 30+ years, to contact me, He decided to ignore me. Even though I asked...

3) God does not impose His will upon you, even though in the Bible, He does (i.e.) Saul/Paul.

4) God is not going to impose His will upon you, so do not pray for God to touch others who are not also already asking themselves.

****************

I could apply even more 'spin' as well... But it's more rational to just assume there exists no such god.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #87]

The doctrine of Purgatory is

Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular "place" in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-roots-of-purgatory

Jesus taught purgatory and did Paul. Peter taught that Jesus went to preach to those in prison 1 pet 3:19

Matt5: 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

Here Jesus teaches purgatory as a parable of prison. You remain in that prison until you have paid every last penny. In other word, you get out of this prison.

Matt 12: 31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Here Jesus talks about how there are sins that can be forgiven in the age to come.

1cor 3:15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

It is good to read starting from verse 10, but Paul here clearly teaches purgatory. Being saved by fire.

And from The Acts of Paul and Thecla 160AD we have

Tryphna again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0816.htm

[POI]

If someone one day shows me enough evidence to the contrary, then I would stop believing.

Well, this is likely never going to happen because your rubric for 'evidence' could never be satisfied. Meaning, how many unanswered prayer requests, to cure incurable conditions, would need to transpire before you started to question if such a god is even there to answer? 100 requests, 500, 1,000,000?

We do not seem to have any truly documented cases of incurable conditions; (like amputees, cerebral palsy, down syndrome, etc etc etc), which are being reversed after prayer. You already know this proclaimed god ain't going to intervene in these prayer requests. Hence, you instead move the goal post, by generating excuse(s). (i.e.)

A) God does not want to be too known?
B) You can pray for a quick death -- (for amputees, downs, and cerebral palsy)?