Answered Prayers

[TagliatelliMonster]

More likely explanation is they lost funding.

Their republicans won the election and asked "why are we spending money up there while we have problems down here????"

 

[Sand Dancer]

Plenty of verses in the Bible are problematic, challenging, hard to reconcile with what we think we understand. Much of life is like that, so why should religion be any different? When I was an adolescent, I expected everything to eventually make sense, but I am no longer an adolescent. As an adult I accept that I am often lost and in need of guidance; prayer and meditation are means of accessing that guidance.

There are many who see things in black and white, so they try to reconcile the problematic verses. You sound like you have a mature attitude about it. Take care.

 

[PureX]

Spiritual energy was the term used, but what's the difference, really? It's just poetry (metaphor), unless one is positing a literal force or energy distinct from the known forces and forms of energy, as when one posits life begins when a soul enters inanimate organic matter and then leaves it again after to death.

Of course we are. But just because we don't know what kind of energy it is, or it's origin, doesn't mean we have to presume it's 'unnatural'. In fact, it would make more sense to presume that it's a naturally achieved effect the same as everything else we experience, is. That doesn't discount a "supernatural" source, though, as any source on a scale transcending nature would have to be "supernatural" by definition.

I agree. Why posit unseen realities when nature seems to be up to the task?

Most of nature IS an "unseen reality". And still unknown to us, as well.

It's interesting how naturalistic your views are given your objections to "materialist" thought and "scientism".

I am simply pointing out that the presumption that the unknown and unexplainable must therefor be "supernatural" is rather a silly presumption when most of what we do know and understand is clearly not (unless we go delving into it's ultimate origins).

I don't see what this god concept does for you. You don't use it to explain the reality you observe. Your views resemble this atheistic humanist's except that they are peppered with reference to gods and divinity. Yes, the energy that powers life is natural. If we saw a dead body - even one already decomposing - revivify, we don't need to invoke unseen realities. Yes, any effects of prayer are explicable in naturalistic terms, too.

It would by definition be an "unseen reality". But I think we agree that this does not mean we should or must assume it to be "supernatural". Most of nature is unseen by us, and unknown to us. So it should be no particular surprise that there would be aspects of it and possible events within it that appear "miraculous" to us.

Neither. The experience was real, but not the hallucinated Jesus.

It's all "real". Hallucinations are a real phenomena. That isn't the issue. The issue is, was "Jesus", Jesus? And the interesting answer is that we have no way of determining that. Or in my "poetic" vernacular ... "Real Compared To What?"

Once again, what does the inclusion of a god concept add to understanding? Nothing as far as I can see. Somehow, this meme gives some kind of comfort to many.

It gives me a tool that I can use to achieve a state of being that I could not achieve without it. It doesn't matter if you can understand this or not. It only matters that I can.

It looks like you're removing your god from your reality every time it moves closer to an atheistic view.

On the contrary. Abstract idealized gods are OK, but not very practical. I prefer a God that actually works, in real life, in real time. So I look for ways to discover that happening. You most likely only look for ways of rejecting that happening. So that's what you find. And that's OK, too. For you. It's just not my way.

Look at how much of what you've written most Christians would disagree with.

Why should I care what anyone else thinks about any of this? I share my experience and understanding, and others can do with it as they please. And the same goes for me. I like it when they share their experiences and understanding. Usually the more different, the better. But I feel no obligation to do anything with it.

On the spectrum ranging from @Kenny to me, your beliefs more closely resemble mine, although you borrow heavily from his religious lexicon using words like God, prayer, and divinity.

I like Kenny. But he is a "believer". While I am a "faith-er". So we don't walk the same path. But I'm glad to have him among us. His way is his own and I think he understands that very well.

I suppose I could do that as well, but I find it off-putting and prefer a more earth and nature-oriented spiritual orientation. Words like spirituality and sacred describe that without supernaturalism.

Ultimately there very likely is a "supernatural realm" of some kind that is responsible for the natural realm within which we all currently exist. But I am not privy to it in any way that I am aware of. I just trust that logically it must be there, and that, experientially, it seems to be mostly benevolent. Beyond that it's all a mystery.

I could never be a theist because I have no basis for a god belief, which makes agnostic atheism the only rational position.

My basis is that it's logical, and it works for me if I let it. But I'm not a "believer", I'm a "faith-er".

But then again, you've never indicated an understanding of what atheism actually is. You define it as the positive statement that gods don't exist.

It's the presumption that gods don't exist. To me, it's a meaningless and ineffective position that seems to inspire nothing but irrational animosity toward religion.

 

[PureX]

Sometimes, I consider the idea that, if there is any actual outside force or sentient entity (or entities) involved in any of this, it could just as easily be something analogous to a scientist - not a parent or a king or a mischievous child playing with toys.

However, I'm not sure if there are any religions which believe that we humans are just lab rats in an experiment. It could even be less glamorous where our existence is the result of some discarded residue from a previous experiment. The Earth could be just one giant trash can. But I can't imagine anyone believing in a religion like that.

Maybe not religions, but I think there are a significant number of people that feel that God is conducting an experiment of some sort. And they have their reasons.

Personally, that's all "above my pay grade". I'm just looking for my own version of God within the hearts and minds and actions of my wonderful fellow humans. I really don't care that much about whatever God "really is". Or if God really is. I'm more interested in what God is to me. And how the reality of that concept can make my life, and the lives of others, better. I'm a pragmatist, I guess.

 

[PureX]

Then why did you agree with me that insofar as praying works, it has nothing to do with the "praying" aspect of it?
You know... when you acknowledged you can achieve the same effect when talking to a rubber duck?

Sometimes, often in fact, to achieve the effect, we have to trust in the power of the icon. Like with a placebo. It's how we get past ourselves, and out of our own way. I don't think you're going to be willing to recognize or understand this because you want it all to be a sham of some kind.

I can do, and in fact do, all those things (insofar as I am able to, off course) and don't require any gods for it.
So how does that make god "real" to us?

You are not the yardstick by which all humanity must stand adjudged. God will be as real to you as you will allow. That is the honest answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is laughable. How could they provide you with a link to Baha'i "sects" if there are none?

That is laughable.
They will then provide you with a link to the websites of some sects founded by various individuals who have claimed to succeed the Founder, Baha’u’llah, and who managed to attract a following.

If they claim to succeed Baha'u'llah, they are obvious liars, since Baha'u'llah clearly specified who was to succeed Him in His will.
If people follow these people then they are not Baha'is, which means "follower of Baha'u'llah."

Finally I find the view that this is a "Baha'i bashing thread" to be laughable since a)accurate portrayals of the faith are not negative portrayals of the faith just because they are not hagiography in nature in my opinion.

When they are accurate I admit that, such as what Abdu'l-Baha said about children of the Father, but most of your portrayals are nothing but personal opinions and biased distortions of the truth. Don't you have anything better to do than bash the Baha'i Faith, and then try to pretend you are not doing so? Do you think people are blind? They can see what you are doing even if your 'buddies' agree with you and give you Likes and Winners.

And
B) you introduced some claims about the Bahai faith into this thread, now you are crying foul because of having those inaccurate views challenged as i see it.

If you dont want your views challenged dont present them on a debate forum.

Those claims have been addressed so I see no reason for any more discussion that is off topic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you feel that your faith is being bashed? You were merely disagreed with twice, once when you said that the Baha'i faith doesn't teach that God is a father and once when you said that there were no sects. Even if you were correct twice there, that is not bashing your faith.

Maybe that was not bashing, but that was the intention, Imo...
I guess you have not been following the other threads about the Baha'i Faith.

 

[danieldemol]

That is laughable.
They will then provide you with a link to the websites of some sects founded by various individuals who have claimed to succeed the Founder, Baha’u’llah, and who managed to attract a following.

If they claim to succeed Baha'u'llah, they are obvious liars, since Baha'u'llah clearly specified who was to succeed Him in His will.
If people follow these people then they are not Baha'is, which means "follower of Baha'u'llah."

The clarity of whom Baha'u'llah specified to succeed him is up for debate amongst those who followed him though.

It is only the majority interpretation of that will which clearly specifies who was to succeed him. There are other interpretations which you seem to be unaware of in my opinion.

When they are accurate I admit that, such as what Abdu'l-Baha said about children of the Father, but most of your portrayals are nothing but personal opinions and biased distortions of the truth. Don't you have anything better to do than bash the Baha'i Faith, and then try to pretend you are not doing so? Do you think people are blind? They can see what you are doing even if your 'buddies' agree with you and give you Likes and Winners.

People are giving me likes and winners because they can see the truth of what im saying in my view.

Those claims have been addressed so I see no reason for any more discussion that is off topic.

If you dont wish to reply no one is forcing you, however you dont get to introduce claims on a debate board for them to go unchallenged. Conversations evolve and it is up to the OP to decide if they have strayed too far from relevance to be of interest to them in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

The clarity of whom Baha'u'llah specified to succeed him is up for debate amongst those who followed him though.

No, it is not up for debate, not unless you have actual evidence to present. Personal opinions do not count..

It is only the majority interpretation of that will which clearly specifies who was to succeed him. There are other interpretations which you seem to be unaware of in my opinion.

I am aware of them but they have no scripture to back them up.

People are giving me likes and winners because they can see the truth of what im saying in my view.

People are also giving me likes and winners because they can see the truth of what I am saying, but so what?

If you dont wish to reply no one is forcing you,

I won't if I don't want to.

 

[danieldemol]

No, it is not up for debate, not unless you have actual evidence to present. Personal opinions do not count..

If personal opinions do not count, neither does yours.

Personally I look at the problem through a completely different lense to you. As a non-Baha'i I don't have a dog in the fight over who the legitimate successor is, but similarly as is the case from within Christianity where there are a wide variety of people who claim to believe in and/or succeed Jesus and people would generally be reffered to as Christian on this basis as opposed to the basis of whether they are *true Christians* I strongly suspect @Stevicus would see those who interpret their leaders as followers of Baha'u'llah as being Baha'is rather than taking a position on whether they are *true Baha'is*. I have not made a claim about whether or not they are *true Baha'is*, only that they are Baha'i sects and that they exist.

I am aware of them but they have no scripture to back them up.

I don't think you are familiar with their arguments then, some of these groups mentioned claim scripture to back them up. Would you like to have a debate with a member of one of these groups so we can see what their actual arguments are over your strawman versions of them?

People are also giving me likes and winners because they can see the truth of what I am saying, but so what?

In my view they are giving you likes and winners because you confirm their biases.

 

[Trailblazer]

If personal opinions do not count, neither does yours.

I do not only have a personal opinion. I have scripture to back me up.

Personally I look at the problem through a completely different lense to you. As a non-Baha'i I don't have a dog in the fight over who the legitimate successor is,

I do not have a dog in the fight because there is no question who the legitimate successor is.
Apparently you do have a dog in the fight since you keep fighting.

but similarly as is the case from within Christianity where there are a wide variety of people who claim to believe in and/or succeed Jesus and people would generally be reffered to as Christian on this basis as opposed to the basis of whether they are *true Christians*

Anyone can claim to succeed Jesus, but Jesus never appointed a successor, and that is why Christians have gone off in so many directions.

I strongly suspect @Stevicus would see those who interpret their leaders as followers of Baha'u'llah as being Baha'is rather than taking a position on whether they are *true Baha'is*. I have not made a claim about whether or not they are *true Baha'is*, only that they are Baha'i sects and that they exist.

Why would it matter if some people split off into sects and called themselves Baha'is, if they are not *true Baha'is?*

I don't think you are familiar with their arguments then, some of these groups mentioned claim scripture to back them up. Would you like to have a debate with a member of one of these groups so we can see what their actual arguments are over your strawman versions of them?

Go ahead, but you would have to start a new thread. I will however give you a forewarning that I am not very familiar with Baha'i history, so I would need to call in @Truthseeker or @TransmutingSoul or one of the other Baha'is who are well-versed in Baha'i history.

The worst that can happen is that I might learn something *new* that I need to know.

In my view they are giving you likes and winners because you confirm their biases.

In my view they are giving you likes and winners because you confirm their biases.

 

[danieldemol]

I do not only have a personal opinion. I have scripture to back me up.

So do some other Baha'i groups in my view.

I do not have a dog in the fight because there is no question who the legitimate successor is.
Apparently you do have a dog in the fight since you keep fighting.

This is silly, you are disagreeing with me (presumably what you mean by "fighting") and accusing me of having a dog in the fight because I keep disagreeing in response all the while claiming you don't have a dog in the fight. If having a dog in the fight means disagreeing then why are you still disagreeing with me?

Anyone can claim to succeed Jesus, but Jesus never appointed a successor

Catholics would disagree with you on that.

Why would it matter if some people split off into sects and called themselves Baha'is, if they are not *true Baha'is?*

It doesn't matter to me if you split off those who followed Baha'u'llah's covenant, as long as you call yourself as a Baha'i I will regard you as a Baha'i.

Go ahead, but you would have to start a new thread. I will however give you a forewarning that I am not very familiar with Baha'i history, so I would need to call in @Truthseeker or @TransmutingSoul or one of the other Baha'is who are well-versed in Baha'i history.

The worst that can happen is that I might learn something *new* that I need to know.

Well it would take me a bit of digging to find one prepared to debate you, but if I find one (or more) do I have your permission to tag you in the new thread?

 

[Trailblazer]

So do some other Baha'i groups in my view.

And if they are Baha'is do they interpret the scripture differently?
Do they believe that Abdu'l-Baha was not the legitimate successor to Baha'u'llah?

This is silly, you are disagreeing with me (presumably what you mean by "fighting") and accusing me of having a dog in the fight because I keep disagreeing in response all the while claiming you don't have a dog in the fight. If having a dog in the fight means disagreeing then why are you still disagreeing with me?

That is not what it means.

The phrase "I don't have a dog in this fight" means that someone is not personally involved or invested in a particular situation or argument. It is often used to indicate that the person is neutral or impartial in a dispute.

What does it mean if someone says "I don't have a dog in this fight"?

Answer (1 of 22): It means you have no special interest in this fight/argument/discussion/debate. Whichever side wins or loses, you personally won’t suffer either way.

www.quora.com

You are anything but neutral or impartial. I am not neutral or impartial either. The reason I said that I have no dog in this fight is because I am not not personally involved or invested in a particular outcome. In other words, your opinion about the Baha'i Faith is like water off a duck's back, unless you can present new evidence I was unaware of.

Catholics would disagree with you on that.

Yes I know. Jesus gave Peter gave the keys to the Kingdom but Jesus did not appoint a successor to carry the keys. That's the problem.

It doesn't matter to me if you split off those who followed Baha'u'llah's covenant, as long as you call yourself as a Baha'i I will regard you as a Baha'i.

That is nice of you, but other Baha'is would not consider me a Baha'i if I did that. I am sure you know how rigid Baha'is can be.
I am never not going to believe that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be but sometimes I have reservations about what happened after He died.

Well it would take me a bit of digging to find one prepared to debate you, but if I find one (or more) do I have your permission to tag you in the new thread?

Yes, you have my permission, but I suggest you also tag the other Baha'is.

 

[Stevicus]

If personal opinions do not count, neither does yours.

Personally I look at the problem through a completely different lense to you. As a non-Baha'i I don't have a dog in the fight over who the legitimate successor is, but similarly as is the case from within Christianity where there are a wide variety of people who claim to believe in and/or succeed Jesus and people would generally be reffered to as Christian on this basis as opposed to the basis of whether they are *true Christians* I strongly suspect @Stevicus would see those who interpret their leaders as followers of Baha'u'llah as being Baha'is rather than taking a position on whether they are *true Baha'is*. I have not made a claim about whether or not they are *true Baha'is*, only that they are Baha'i sects and that they exist.

I actually don't think there's any "true" anything, or at least, no one is really qualified to be able to say it.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

If someone prays for something and it happens(for whatever reason) they will say/may say "See! God is real. He listened and answered my prayer".

If your prayers aren't answered what then?

Does that make god not listening? Not real? Or?

It’s a form of cognitive bias known specifically as confirmation bias, where god is presupposed to exist and therefore “answered prayers” are seen as a confirmation of the presupposed god.

The “unanswered prayers” are discounted or rationalized away in order to not upset the concept of the presupposed god.


Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is insuperable for most people, but they can manage it, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Orbit]

If someone prays for something and it happens(for whatever reason) they will say/may say "See! God is real. He listened and answered my prayer".

If your prayers aren't answered what then?

Does that make god not listening? Not real? Or?

When I was a Christian, I prayed all the time, about all kinds of things, but my prayers were never answered. Except once, about 2010, I got a St. Jude candle and prayed for a particular job. I got the job, and it kind of freaked me out because that had never happened before. Later I realized I would have gotten the job anyway.

 

[Kenny]

Right, so your objection to the study indeed is "they were praying wrong"?
In other words, they should redo the study and hire you as a consultant to tell those people "how to pray correctly" and then you are confident there would a statisitical difference?

I'ld love to read the resulting report of that study.



Right, right. Your species of no-true scotsman is noted.

Go ahead. Set it up. Repeat the study and be a consultant for the people praying so you can make sure they pray "correctly" (read: pray in a way that you personally approve of).

I for one expect the exact same result. Prove me wrong. I'ld love to be proven wrong. But I don't think it's gonna happen.



Or so they believe. Just like the millions of people who believe to be reaping the benefits of paying fortune tellers, tarrot card readers, sceance readers, astrologists, voodoo shamans, crystal healings, homeopaths, etc.

All people who's default response to the many many studies showing it has no statistical outcome different from random occurence by the way, is "they are doing it wrong".

OK… We surmise that you don’t believe in prayer. Hope a better method for living is working for you.

 

[Truthseeker]

I do not have a dog in the fight because there is no question who the legitimate successor is.
Apparently you do have a dog in the fight since you keep fighting.

 

[We Never Know]

The clarity of whom Baha'u'llah specified to succeed him is up for debate amongst those who followed him though.

It is only the majority interpretation of that will which clearly specifies who was to succeed him. There are other interpretations which you seem to be unaware of in my opinion.

People are giving me likes and winners because they can see the truth of what im saying in my view.

If you dont wish to reply no one is forcing you, however you dont get to introduce claims on a debate board for them to go unchallenged. Conversations evolve and it is up to the OP to decide if they have strayed too far from relevance to be of interest to them in my view.

"People are giving me likes and winners because they can see the truth of what im saying in my view"

With two likes, one informative and one optimistic I wouldn't take the frubes as seeing truth or anything great.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So do some other Baha'i groups in my view.

There is no other Baha'i groups and they do not have the authorised writings. A few that have tried to break away may have ended up with a handful of people, but they are not and cannot be Baha'i and will not produce a progresive and legitimate faith.

The Brother of Baha’u’llah was an expert at forging changes in the works of Baha’u’llah and attempted this deceptive practice often.

My prayer for the future is a technology that will be able to pick up that forgeries and then even those polluted document can reveal their true intent.

Regards Tony