Prayer
1. The rabbi writes in the second book of the trilogy that according to his intuition, people feel that prayer is boring because they don’t think prayer is useful. In practice, we see the opposite – in difficult situations, when praying for a loved one, people actually pray. I see here that when people feel that everything is good for them, then there is no point in praying because they “don’t need God,” but when they do, then they also feel the need to pray.
2. If prayer is not beneficial, as the Rabbi says, why did the prophets who were among the people of the Great Knesset institute prayer at all?
3. The Rabbi cites the Mishnah in Berakhot (9:3) and proves from there that the distinction between an “overt miracle” and a “hidden miracle” is incorrect because at the time the case of the pregnant woman was a hidden miracle that was also forbidden according to what is derived from this Mishnah. Why is it impossible to say that the distinction is between praying for something that has already happened and something that will happen? In other words, all the cases discussed in the Mishnah are things that have already happened in the past and God does not change them, God only changes things in the future and for which it is permissible to pray..?
4. Note: At the end of the chapter on prayer, the Rabbi talks about the problems with prayer and how it might be necessary to say that only in extreme situations where there is no other choice is it permissible to pray. The Rabbi then asks how it is permissible to ask for requests in prayer and answers that perhaps one can intend to pray for other people… There is a common saying that people ask in the plural precisely because they are supposed to pray for the needs of the many and not for the needs of the individual (I think the source is in the Kuzari).
- As the saying goes, “There are no atheists in the trenches.” When a person is afraid, he looks for an anchor to hang on to. The fact is that afterwards, there is usually nothing left of all this awakening.
- In the past, it seems there was involvement. I have written about this more than once here on the site.
- Because there is no such distinction. Whatever will happen has already happened. After all, given the cause, the cause also comes out. So what is the difference?
- Maybe. I brought that up too.
Regardless of the question,
1. Are they secret believers. That is, would it be right for them to rely on this basic intuition of something above them to believe in it. Or would it not be rational to believe in God as a result.
I am not talking about His intervention in the world and whether it is right to pray or not. But about existence itself.
I don't know. Maybe there are some and there are others. Everyone decides for themselves what their intuition is. Religious preachers prefer to see this as a hidden faith, but as I said: I'm not sure about this at all. Why prefer the faith in the trenches over the atheism outside them?!
1. This still does not answer the theory I proposed. I suggested that when those people need something, they feel the need to turn to God, and when they do not have a strong need, they do not feel the need to talk to God. I suppose it is a matter of intuition and what intuition tells us is their assumption. (I will just add that the rabbi usually says the innovation about Jonah the prophet in the context of the Kikion that we immediately put a criminal thought into him, the question is whether this is not the same case where we tend to think criminally when we say that those people do it only out of fear.)
2. What I meant by the question was that if the prophets had corrected the prayer - it is likely that they would have known that the level of providence was decreasing and would have said something about it. It seems that the opposite is true and they actually corrected the wording of the prayer. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, but I know that Rabbi Shreki often says that the members of the Great Knesset established the prayer as a ”kind of prophecy”.
3. According to the method of Rabbi Panch’ ” in reality it is the various choices of man. That is, in a given situation X did he choose Y or Z (in a simplistic description). That is, man can only change what will happen in the future and act for that. And God, according to the Rabbi, knows what happened in the past, but He does not know the future because human decisions are involved. It could be said that what happened in the past has already happened and there is no way back from it, on the other hand, in the current reality (the present) which is changeable by man, God also intervenes and sometimes decides.
1. There are many theories. I have nothing to add beyond what I wrote.
2. I wrote that according to my suggestion, reality has changed. I have nothing to add.
3. Of course, God can intervene, but the question is whether he does so. He can also intervene to change the sex of the fetus even after 40 days. It is past as it is future. And again, I wrote it.
Sorry for the insolence.
Does the Rabbi pray?
And if so,
Only Texas? Or with intention?
My method is described here on the site and also in the trilogy books. Take it from there.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
