What's the point of praying? If God already knows what's best for you, what's the point of saying you need more

>>24582105 (OP)
If theres an unlimited god he never loses except by his own choice. This should be the ultimate blackpill to free spirits.

>>24582105 (OP)
This thread belongs on /his/

>>24582272
But this isnt a /pol/ bait thread

it's a kind of focused meditation. like gooning

>>24582105 (OP)
coping, like all religion

>>24582105 (OP)
This is explicitly the reason in Matthew that Jesus gives for the words of the Lord's Prayer (or "Our Father.") The only petitions are for the forgiveness of sins, the daily bread (The Eucharist, not loaves,) the freedom from temptation, and that his will be done. Prayer done for the acquisition of goods or for specific acts are not necessary or healthy for the general populace. In Scripture people only are able to pray for a thing and receive directly when it is something God already willed but that He wanted to coincide in time with the prayers of that person as a demonstration of their value to Him and of His constancy to them. If you haven't prayed recently and this is only a theoretical question I recommend that if you do to try just praying "Jesus Christ show me you're real," and He might very well do it.
>>24582125
I like this post because it is technically true and describes the events of the Cross.

>>24582105 (OP)
Prayer doesn't mean listing your requests, it means worshipping and thanking God for what you already have.

There's a lack of understanding for the concept of embodying on this board. You in many ways become what you aim for when you're actively dedicating time, resources and energy to that thing. Your brain becomes full of nothing but the mantra when you repeat a mantra. You're changing a pattern by allowing your body to move in certain ways because God has told you to. You become less of something by doing more of something else. There's also a political dimension to this. You become a unit if you and your friends all align yourself with specific language, movement and rituals. It's foundational.

>>24582675
You don't necessarily get rich by praying for money. But you become a person who can express their desire for something, you become a person who can center that which you desire in your mind's eye and you also become a person who can stay motivated even if you don't immediately get that thing you're asking for. It's essentially a pretty good general strategy

post other vid

>>24582105 (OP)

This is calvinism, everything is pre-ordained so nothing matters. It is even blasphesmous to attempt to change the will of god.

>>24582105 (OP)
so that combination lock on the door doesn't do anything.

>>24582105 (OP)
Soul is weak. It must be saved. It will perish on every corner. You have to apply prayers like you apply salvarsan to your private parts after visiting bordel. The prayer is the only means.

>>24582773
>everything is pre-ordained
Yes
>so nothing matters.
Why would God ordaining something not matter? Does God's will not matter? If anyone is blaspheming it's you.

>>24582105 (OP)
you pray for strength to endure because that's the only thing that lazy fuck will give you if he gives you anything at all.

one day a family was woken up in the early morning hours, their sick grandparents were shot in bed, their newborn infant too and then they were led to a forest where the parents had to watch their children getting shot in the head before they got shot too on top of their corpses and the corpses of the rest of the village. i bet they all prayed during the whole thing. maybe to the wrong god?

>Jesus said to his disciples: Compare me, tell me whom I am like.
>Simon Peter said to him: You are like a righteous angel.
>Matthew said to him: You are like a wise philosopher.
>Thomas said to him: Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like.
>Jesus said: I am not your master, for you have drunk, and have become drunk from the bubbling spring which I have caused to gush forth.
>And he took him, withdrew and spoke to him three words.
>Now when Thomas came back to his companions, they asked him: What did Jesus say to you?
>Thomas said to them: If I tell you one of the words which he said to me, you will take up stones and throw them at me; and a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up.
>Jesus said to them: If you fast, you will put a sin to your charge; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your inner spirits.

>Jesus said: Do not lie, and what you abhor, do not do; for all things are manifest in the sight of heaven; for there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered which will remain without being uncovered.

the great fuck you aka the tribulation

>muh tribulation

>>24583538
>whom you are like

>>24582105 (OP)
>What's the point of praying?
To ask for forgiveness, and to give thanks.

>>24583559
didn't notice that
totally incorrect use of whom as it's not an indirect object... or is it? because it's comparative. I don't know.

>>24583569
It's incorrect because "whom" is the objective case of "who", but "are" is a copula and doesn't take an object. "Are" is just stating that something *is* something else, that they're equivalent, so there's no action or object. It's the same reason that you'd say "who are you" instead of "whom are you". If your sentence was something like, "I am incapable of saying whom you have foretold" then it would be correct because "whom" would be the object of "foretold."

Origen, On Prayer discusses the different types of prayer and analyzes the Lord’s Prayer. Short and public domain, can get from ccel.org.

I Exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giuing of thanks be made for all men :
For Kings, and for all that are in authoritie, that we may leade a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honestie.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Sauiour

>>24583423
>Does God's will not matter?

Calvinists believe in "Double predestination"
the idea that not only does God choose some to be saved, He also creates some people who will be damned.

Not much matters if god created you to go to hell.

>>24583910
>Calvinists believe in "Double predestination"
This is actually a controversial subject within Calvinism, with a disagreement between two schools of thought on the matter, infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism, with only the latter supporting this idea. It's a belief that does exist within Calvinism but to say that all Calvinists believe it is wrong.
>Not much matters if god created you to go to hell.
It certainly would matter because your punishment in Hell would glorify God.

>>24583919

Do you know which bible passages are cited as proof of double predestination or supralapsarianism?

>your punishment in Hell would glorify God,
This sounds like a Japanese writer's idea of an American cult leader.

>>24583919
>infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism
Basically the argument is over, when considering God's decree of creation, how do the different aspects of it relate to each other on a logical (not temporal) level. So, the question is whether the decree election is logically anterior or posterior to the decree of the creation of man. If the decree of election comes first logically, then it means that certain men were decreed to be elect, then non-elected individuals were created in distinction to those who were already decreed as elected (this would be "double predestination"). If the decree of election comes later logically, then this would men that all men were decreed to be created and then some were later (again logically, not temporally) elected to salvation and the rest were "passed over". This is a subtle distinction and you may not think it matters, but Calvinists think that it does. There's also a third position that it's not possible (or perhaps not permissible) to break the matter down in this way.

>>24583940
>Do you know which bible passages are cited as proof of double predestination or supralapsarianism?
The most common is probably Romans 9:21-23

>This sounds like a Japanese writer's idea of an American cult leader.
I assume you'd agree that God is glorified in the destruction of evil, would you not?
>For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

God likes to be asked.

>>24583959
>I assume you'd agree that God is glorified in the destruction of evil, would you not?

I am not well versed enough in scripture to refute the Calvinists or you besides feeling it's wrong. Someone else please take stronganon down.

>>24583978
It's okay, I don't really want to get into a long drawn-out argument over whether Calvinism is correct. I mainly wanted to explain the actual positions that Calvinists have on this. Also I think some of the objections that get thrown around are kind of silly. Like, if God decided something instead of you then it doesn't matter. What???

God won't give you anything unless you worship him, which the muslim view. He will actively make your life worse not better if you don't believe in him.

>>24584003

You aren't a 2025 Calvinist supralapsarianister? Damn, I was going to ask you if the Final Destination movies are like the ultimate conclusion of double predestination

>>24583978
scripturally he's correct. calvinism is the "bitter lesson" of christianity in that if you actually look at the bible its text supports the Five Points:
>total depravity: all human beings are inherently evil and deserve damnation (Romans 3:23)
>unconditional election: it's entirely up to God who gets into heaven and no one else can change that. This follows from total depravity because why would a fundamentally evil creature be able to enter God's kingdom by his own effort
>Limited atonement, basically that Christ's death did not redeem the souls of at least some sinners, according to the existence of an eternal Hell for some
>Irresistible grace, basically a corollary to unconditional election - a person foreordained by God to be "good" can't choose to be "evil"
>Perseverance of the saints - mostly the same as irresistible grace; a "good" person can't be tempted to fall away; once you are elect that's it
These are what the bible actually says but it's not very useful to organize your society around a religion that denies free will, which is why Catholicism and evangelicalism are more popular

>>24582590
I take solace in the fact that I doubt there is any idea that humans have had that likely describes creation in its causality well, and even if by some hellish chance the christian god is real, if it can be truely described as an entity seperate from its creation and being, then it is likely just as limited as least by the nature of being. which is solace because what i find evil i can give the benefit of the doubt as limitation by the nature of being on god, or that there are some gaps in which my will can overpower his.

>you are le satanist evil worshipper

i dont think disagreement with god has to be because one thinks he is just evil. I imagine that whats good for a creator and his creation are likely different things, by the nature of having different experience and means of experiencing.

>>24584211
I object to you referring to the elect as "good" in the way that you have. The fact that election is unconditional means that it's not based on some aspect of an elect person that makes them more deserving or better than someone else. An elect person is equally undeserving of salvation. And of course being saved does not immediately free you from sin, though the Spirit is working within you to sanctify you. This also brings up the point of whether or not you "know" that you are elect. It's important to consciously persevere in your faith. There is no "resting on your laurels". Sanctification is a mandatory part of the process of salvation, and if your faith does not show fruits in good works and obedience to Christ then you are not saved.

>>24584352
Ultimately the question is not "am I elect or not". The question is do you have faith in Christ, do you love Christ and obey him, and repent of your sins. Consider if you stood before God and had to answer why you should be allowed into heaven. "Well, I'm elect" is not an answer, and it's not an answer that any elect person would give. The promises God makes to the elect are something to trust in and gain comfort and security in your faith. It's not an abstraction or some robotic thing like people try to caricature it as.

Westminster Confession of Faith 3.8
>The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

>>24584260
>I imagine that whats good for a creator and his creation are likely different things, by the nature of having different experience and means of experiencing.
You are projecting human qualities onto God and viewing him as more of a personal demiurge than the ground of existence that classical theology views God as.

>>24584864
Well, as i've said, an unlimited god is a blackpill for me perhaps and that projection is my cope. A foundational god is a blackpill as well as its just as likely in my mind to be immovable.

>>24584873
It shouldn't be a "blackpill." What's your problem with God?

>>24584896
If my experience is unsatisfying or my desires and loves aren't expressed and experienced in this world in the way I would like, some way to manipulate the world to be so is the only path i can see to achieving that. In a world driven by intention or will not my own, such a thing simply isn't possible in any form. A denial of self would be required to make true peace in such a scenario, and I find such a thing sad and hopeless in an existence whose nature is formed without consent.

>>24584904
You have a malformed view of freedom. The satisfaction of one appetite or another according to your desire isn't freedom, it's just the arrangement of different urges in the scheme of control over your actions. Because of this and your strange idea of God, you conclude that divinity is some kind of competitor with your own will in terms of whose desire should be carried out, forgetting that God is not just a mere other will whose ability to exert itself over the world overpowers our own, but the ground of existence and goodness - the ground in which you can find true freedom by acting according to your nature as an image of this goodness.

>>24584973
Whether or not "gods good" is my good isn't my decision either. I don't know whether the ability to satisfy wishes and desires is freedom, but having the world and good defined priori to me seems alone enough to be disheartened if you wished it differently.
To wish that things are different then they are- this is the essence of my melancholy. If this were done without my autonomy, that might satisfy me, or maybe not. I just don't find tautologies about "goodness" satisfying at all and doesn't address this feeling even if true somehow.

>>24584989
Again, you're taking your idea of good and your idea of God's goodness to be equal to each other, like differing opinions, when they're very much not. The latter is *the* good, not just someone else's idea of it, and you only find this dissatisfying because you assume this goodness is like yours but differing by means of coming from a similar existence as yourself.
Also, getting upset because you can't make the world in your own image is retarded. You are not God and never will be, and the world will never be exactly what you want. Get over it like everyone else on the Earth (and beyond it) or spend your entire life moping for no reason.

>>24582105 (OP)
My priest answered this once he said prayer is for our benefit so we can have a relationship with God not because it will change God's unchanging will

>>24585009
Not sure what message you are trying to give. I don't know about equality or opinions. I only meant what I said.
>you are not god and never will be, and the world will never be exactly what you want
I don't know what else I could've implied by the conditional
>if theres an unlimited god

>get over it
very christian of you. If theres a god, he will have his way, and its as such that I feel the way I do, that should sate whatever contempt you hold if you have humanitarian instinct.

>>24582105 (OP)

>>24585018
Dude I'm not trying to be contemptuous, I'm trying to give you advice. Accepting that there are things you can't change goes a long way towards having a bit of inner peace. You can either do this or, like I said, spend life moping. Your choice.

Zero effort writing prompt bot threads (which seek to elicit a response by not knowing anything about their own topic or being wildly wrong) originated on /pol/, where they were intended to be a pure nuisance and drive users away (they failed). Stupid outsider shills don't know that 4chan has more than one board, let alone that the boards have distinct characters. So now you get to deal with this. The entire site needs the /s/ rule that OP actually know something about his own topic and actually contribute something (the /s/ 6 minimum posts requirement) or it will drown in zero effort one-post spam asking why 2+2 equals five or whether coffee is good for you.