rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (11/11/83)
>>What is the difference between praying to god for help and helping >>yourself? > >The same as the difference between discussing a problem with a friend >and trying to work out a solution with no help. The human friend may >give you good advice, and point out a solution you might not have >thought of on your own, but you might still implement the solution >yourself. My own feeling is that it is great to ask other people (living entities) for advice and help. When one "asks god" or "prays to god", since I obviously have doubts about the existence of a god, I feel that this is merely introspection. Again, it works for some people if they believe it is god, when in reality it is their own introspection. Maybe this is what is meant by the statement I quote below... >>If the Lord helps those who help themselves, isn't prayer just >>a methodology for getting yourself in the frame of mind to help yourself? > >The statement that the Lord helps those who help themselves is not >biblical, as far as I know. It is often used as a copout as to why >someone should not be obligated to help another. Agreed. I think the statement is indeed biblical, though, and is a perfect example of quoting the bible to suit one's needs. >If a person believes that there is really a god out there listening >to prayers, and that that god is able and willing to guide us in >some way, then prayer is more than a method of altering one's frame >of mind. Prayer does in fact alter one's frame of mind, but it >does more. What you seem to call prayer I would call 'meditation' >or 'contemplation'. How God answers prayer is another subject >about which volumes have been written. Your paragraph assumes the existence of the god in question, which is of course where we differ. My opinions on the non-existence of god have already been put forth and explained. >>What is wrong with the idea that, as long as I don't interfere in the rights >>of other human beings, I should be free to live to my best potential as I >>see fit? > >In one sense, there is nothing wrong with it. Supposing that God does >exist, wouldn't you expect that living up to your best potential >would include understanding yourself in relationship to God? > > [This idea] isn't wrong; it just isn't best. God knows your best potential > better than you do. If god existed, why would I be obliged to understand myself in relation to it? Do you (or I) establish understanding about our relationships to every single thing in the universe? You constantly assume that god must hold some special position of authority (specifically over you and all other people). Why? This is YOUR assumption (desire?) about the nature of god (not necessarily his :-). Think about it. Why does god have to be the way you picture it? Where have you seen evidence that shows this? >In another sense, there is one thing wrong with the idea: it seems >quite clear from current and past discussions that no two people >can always agree on what rights each should have. Only the god you choose to believe in is perfect. Human beings are not. (Is this another reason that you feel that there must be a god?) Experiments like democracy are the ways that people try to establish their own guidelines and rights without external imposition. To believe the bible as the ultimate arbiter of people's rights is to impose your arbitrary standards on everyone. Why? [A FINAL CONCLUDING STATEMENT WILL FOLLOW SHORTLY; DID I SAY WHEN I STARTED THIS THAT I WAS GOING TO BE BRIEF?... ] Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr