tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post112840548696771106..comments2023-08-05T21:48:58.831-04:00Comments on Philochristos: The Power of Crying Out, (three proofs on the power of the spoken word) part 7Sam Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1129742304549990842005-10-19T13:18:00.000-04:002005-10-19T13:18:00.000-04:00Oh yeah. I did misunderstand you.Oh yeah. I did misunderstand you.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1129727793635701732005-10-19T09:16:00.000-04:002005-10-19T09:16:00.000-04:00I think you might have misunderstood what I said.I...I think you might have misunderstood what I said.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that words have power in themselves; I'm saying that God may prefer spoken words in general, for whatever reason; one evidence of this is that in Genesis God chose to "speak" to will the Universe into existence, even though He could have done it in infinitely many ways. This shows that He may have some preference for speaking, in general (it does NOT show anything about the "power" of words, because God is all-powerful and persumably could have created the Universe to the same magnitude using any other "method").<BR/><BR/>Then I'm saying someone may try to draw the connection that this preference for speaking (in general) could apply to us "speaking" to God. For whatever reason, maybe God likes us to speak. Perhaps spoken word seems to imply more devotion than non-spoken word, in general. But all I am saying is that the fact God chose to speak in Genesis implies that speaking may some extra significance to Him.daleliophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533665826521400068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1129725212506277102005-10-19T08:33:00.000-04:002005-10-19T08:33:00.000-04:00Dale,Even if we grant that God's words had power, ...Dale,<BR/><BR/>Even if we grant that God's words had power, and it was the power of those words that brought the universe into being, that still can't be used as a precedent for us praying out loud. There are two reasons. First, just because God can make his words have power doesn't mean we can. Genesis tells us exactly what God said. If the words themselves have power, then we should expect the same effect when we say the words. But the fact of the matter is that nothing we say has that kind of power. I can say, "Let there be lemonade" all day, and nothing will happen.<BR/><BR/>Second, even if we grant that words have power, that is irrelevent to prayer. Prayer is when you ask God to do something. If it's the words that have power, then it's the words that bring about the effect, not God. When God said, "Let there be light," he wasn't praying to some other god above him.<BR/><BR/>SamSam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1129702446064311512005-10-19T02:14:00.000-04:002005-10-19T02:14:00.000-04:00What if we changed the second "proof" to appeal to...What if we changed the second "proof" to appeal to the fact that God actively chose to 'speak', whereas being all-powerful He could have used any method He wanted, for example, "thinking" the Universe into existence.<BR/><BR/>Even if it were not God literally speaking, the fact that it was recorded to us in that manner in Genesis implies that God's speaking bore some similarity to human speaking. The Bible also says that we are made in the image of God -- so our form of speech may very well be derived from God's "speech".<BR/><BR/>Continuing that argument, an author like Gothard could conclude that God may put greater preference on speaking one's desires, since, when He could have chosen any means possible, God chose to 'speak' when He actualized the greatest desire of all -- the Universe itself.<BR/><BR/>[Personally, I don't think this argument works, because it is quite possible that the purpose of Genesis recording the way God "spoke" was just the author's best way to get the message across of how God created the Universe. Perhaps it gave the text a more majestic and poetic quality, which there <I>is</I> when you read through it.]daleliophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533665826521400068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1129691790266833712005-10-18T23:16:00.000-04:002005-10-18T23:16:00.000-04:00I dunno, Angie. You might have to say the words i...I dunno, Angie. You might have to say the words in Latin while pointing a wand at her.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-1129616584416434812005-10-18T02:23:00.000-04:002005-10-18T02:23:00.000-04:00Quite the contrary, Steve. Gothard is the one who...Quite the contrary, Steve. Gothard is the one who takes the Bible very literally. My argument is <I>against</I> his literal interpretation. I don't think words literally have power, and I don't think God literally spoke words to create the universe.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.com