Of all the odd things I did as a Witness, resuming praying seemed the oddest at the time. 
I had been taught to pray in my Catholic youth, but had given it up for Lent one year, and had never gotten back into the habit after “Easter.” These early prayers were mostly “vain repetitions” learned by rote.
I even prayed the rosary, where some beads signaled an “Our Father” and others a “Hail Mary” (not to be confused with the desperado pass in football.)
I recall that in praying the “Hail Mary” I never understood what “the fruit of thy womb, Jesus” meant. I didn’t know what a womb was. I thought we were saying “fruit of thy whom Jesus” which didn’t make much sense (but then neither did all the Latin we chanted back and forth with the priest during mass in the days before Vatican II changed the rules.)
That prayer ended with another curiosity: we asked Mary to “pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.” This generated a lot of questions in my young mind. If Mary was going to pray for us now, why would she have to pray for us again at the hour of our death? Hadn’t her first prayer done us any good? And how would Mary know when it was the “hour of our death”? That seemed to mean that there had to be a predestined time for us to die! I wondered if Mary kept a logbook of those who had prayed a “Hail Mary” sometime in their life and then when she saw that their time was running out within the next sixty minutes began praying for them again. Poor Mary would be kept woefully busy praying for a multitude of sinners simultaneously around the clock1. Not my idea of heavenly bliss!
I decided to give Mary a break and not ask her to pray for me anymore. I threw away my rosary, and the following year I gave up Catholicism for Lent.
When I became a Witness I enjoyed laughing at such foolish notions held by my former religion. But, did I come to find anything laughable in the Witness idea of prayer?
Witnessing Prayer Amongst the Witnesses
I found that prayer was a little different amongst the Witnesses. Their prayers always started out “Dear heavenly father Jehovah,” as if they were dictating a letter.
It struck me as too informal. Even an Earthly judge is addressed as “your honor” rather than, “Dear Fred,” for instance. Then there’s the matter of respect. If I addressed my father by his first name it would be seen as disrespectful. But we thought Jehovah was so in love with the sound of his own name that he didn’t mind the disrespect, and rather appreciated our constant overuse of it [even if we were horribly mangling it due to the mistranslation of the name from YHWH.]
Although the Witnesses eschewed rote prayers, they nearly always followed a set formula:
- The salutation (“[Dear] heavenly father Jehovah.”)
- Thanks (with plenty of obsequiousness thrown in such as thanking God for the privilege of serving him.)
- Putting in an “order” for what was wanted (e.g. productive field service or an enlightening Watchtower study [not much chance of the latter order being filled!])
- More asking for what was wanted (typically including “an extra portion of your spirit.”)
- Remembering the “persecuted brothers,” missionaries, Bethel workers, etc.
- Looking forward to the “new order” (with more obsequious fawning at the prospect of serving Jehovah forever in paradise.)
Then would come the closing. This was critically important; without the proper closing we thought that God wouldn’t hear any of what went before in our prayer.
Kind of like writing an email and forgetting to hit the Send button.[But this was a little odd because we were told that he had no trouble hearing any gossiping we might engage in even without such conversations having to end with the closing formula.]
The closing was always:
“We ask this all in Jesus’ name: ‘Amen’.”
I always wondered why they said that Jesus’ name was “Amen.” I knew that Jesus’ was nicknamed “the Word,” and the Watchtower told us he used the alias “Michael” when he went off battling serpents and such. 
But I was always curious as to why he would adopt the name of that Egyptian deity Amen (aka Amon-Ra) [as Revelation 3:14 informs us that he did.] I also wondered why we thought it so important to always remind God of this fact at the close of every prayer. I speculated on what would happen if I were to close my prayer with “…in Jesus’ name: Michael.” Would that work just as well, or would it end up in the dead-letter office of undeliverable prayers?
Finally, the closing was followed by the only chanting the Witnesses indulge in: everyone would repeat Jesus’ alias: “Amen.” In the end the reason for this wasn’t any clearer to me than the Latin chanting of my Catholic youth.
Witness tip: If you ever have to fake your way through a public prayer, the above formula can’t fail to win you accolades from your hearers for a job well done. [It worked for me many a time.]
Another tip: The most memorable prayer I ever heard was performed by a Bethel brother in the dining room. Up to step 6 it was standard fare, but then he added the zinger:
“We look forward to the day when you will wipe out every two-legged germ from off the face of the Earth.”
This not only evoked the obligatory chant of “Amen” at its conclusion, but was followed by gales of laughter by all in attendance [save yours truly.] So, in order to add spice to your prayer performance, don’t forget to take an occasional snipe at “worldly” people and their hilarious destruction.
Some Honest Questions about Prayer
What does it mean to ask for “an extra portion of your spirit” from Jehovah? Is this the same spirit the WT tells us is an impersonal “life force”? So it’s roughly equivalent of “may the force be with you” from the Star Wars movies? Does a person receiving “an extra portion” of life-force thereby become “more alive”? [If so, what, exactly does “more alive” mean? I always thought you were either alive or dead, without any gradations between the two states of being.] Or do they thereby live longer, or what?
I imagined that receiving “an extra portion” of Jehovah’s spirit would be similar to somehow plugging a 120-volt appliance into a 240-volt outlet and watching the meltdown that would ensue.
I remember in the Kingdom Hall when they came to this part of the prayer I would picture everyone’s hair suddenly standing on end as they began rolling their eyes, yelling in tongues and doing the jitterbug amidst crashing folding-chairs and sparks of electricity shooting from their fingers. [Everyone thought I was smiling after the prayer due to my contemplating Jehovah; little did they know.]
If God’s spirit is everywhere (the whole omnipresent thing) then how can it be divided up: a portion here and a portion there? If an “extra” portion goes somewhere is it removed from somewhere else? So are people dying left and right every time the Witnesses are energized in this manner — rendering their prayers murderous?!
Jesus made a great point in regards to prayer when he reputedly said “God already knows what you need better than you do.” (MT 6:8) Everyone seems to forget this when they pray. Jesus himself forgot it when he gave us the “model prayer:” (MT 6:9-13) asking for daily bread, forgiveness, and not to be led by God into temptation [which, according to the Bible God would never do anyway — (James 1:13) so why pray for God not to do it?]
Frankly, to me, prayer has always seemed the height of impertinence. We pretend to speak to the ultimate, all-mighty, all-knowing being with patronizing flattery and requests for things he should already know we need. Shall we “pray for peace”? Okay, but why wouldn’t God already know that we need peace? If peace were important to him he would’ve done something about it already, right? Shall we pray for the sick? Okay, but why would a God who created disease and watched as people got sick suddenly change his mind about their fate just because we asked him to?
Does God assume we know better than he does? Do we imagine God saying, “Hmmm, I was going to let that stroke of Mrs. Olson’s prove fatal by Wednesday. But Bob Jacobs just prayed for her to get better. Bob’s plan sounds better than mine; guess I’ll change my mind and cancel that Wednesday death.”?
Worse is when people bargain with God in their prayers: “If you’ll make Linda say Yes to my offer of marriage I’ll never miss another meeting as long as I live.” As if God — with the entire universe to keep running — would take time out to consider your deal and then force someone into marriage [manipulating freewill in the process] just for the thrill of seeing your face every week in the Kingdom Hall!
Two biblical examples of such bargaining come to mind. One is of Jacob offering to take on Jehovah as his God: if he’ll feed and clothe him, then Jacob will make Jehovah his god and give him a tenth of his earnings (Gen 28:20-22). [Can’t you just picture God herding every 10th sheep of Jacob’s into heaven?]
The other example is that “great man of faith” Jephthah who promised to burn to death the first person he saw coming out of his house if Jehovah would help him murder the children of Ammon (Judges 11:30-31). According to the Bible, both bargains were accepted and successfully completed [in Jephthah’s case with the burning of his daughter! (Judges 11:33-40) Making him one of our top 5 most-wanted.]
In the Bible Jesus reputedly said that whatever we ask for will be granted. (Mt. 21:22) So what happens when people pray for opposite results? What if, while Bob was praying for Mrs. Olson’s recovery, Mr. Olson was praying for a quick and painless release from his wife’s suffering? (We’re assuming, of course, that both Bob and Mr. Olson are devout Jehovah’s Witnesses in good standing, putting in over 10 hours of field service each month, never visiting apostate sites, and following the standard prayer-formula given above.) There’s no possible way to grant both opposing prayers, so what Jesus reputedly claimed is false.
An Experiment in Prayer
But let’s be scientific about this and turn from the hypothetical to the experiential: let’s conduct our own little experiment. It should be very easy to validate the truthfulness of Jesus’ statement. If God grants everything we ask in prayer, then let us pray:
“God, please send me ten million dollars in the mail today. In Jesus’ name: ‘Amen’.”
Wait a moment… my mail carrier is walking up to my mailbox right now… he’s delivering something! Let me see… Damn; it’s just the latest Watchtower and some other junk mail. My prayer wasn’t answered. Was yours? If not, then we are forced to conclude that what Jesus reputedly said about prayer is evidently not true. [On the other hand, if you did receive your ten million dollars I’ll recant this whole article if you’ll send me a ten percent “finder’s fee” for having given you the whole pray-for-10-million-bucks idea.]
Controlled experiments have been conducted on the effectiveness of prayer. Some of these have shown a slight advantage to those prayed for over the non-prayed-for control group. Some believers have been quick to jump on these results as proof of the effectiveness of prayer. Let’s see why they’re wrong.
If prayer has no effect, then the results of such experiments will be random: sometimes one group will fare better, and sometimes the other group will fare better (like flipping a coin). This seems to be the case: one article states that only in 57% of known studies did the prayer-group fare better http://health.howstuffworks.com/prayer-healing1.htm (esp. second page). That’s hardly impressive (if I flip a coin a hundred times, I wouldn’t be amazed if it came up heads 57 times.).
An experiment that proves something needs to produce those results every time it is performed (“repeatability”). Also, by “randomizing” and then not afterwards categorizing the healthier patients on both sides, the experiments fail to take into account the non-random factors of age, original severity, genetic makeup, healthier diets and exercise, environmental factors, other health issues, etc… (For instance, maybe the randomization resulted in one group being on average younger or stronger than the other, and that just happened to be the group prayed for.) http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical4.htm
Believers are also failing to take into account the fact that many experiments failed to show any meaningful difference between those prayed for and those not prayed for. For instance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401695.html
So, the meta-analysis (combining the results of several studies) has shown that prayer has no meaningful effectiveness beyond the placebo effect.
Finally, a personal, opinion of mine: If you think prayer is somehow answered by a conscious being (“god”) then it seems unfair if this god somehow provides more help to people who are prayed for than to those who are not prayed for. So, here’s a little boy with leukemia in the control group, and another in the prayer group. This omniscient, omnibenevolent god looks at these two boys with the same affliction and decides to work divine magic on the one prayed over, but lets the other one suffer on his own. I guess hospitals are more ethical than this god; they try their best to help both boys.
So, I don’t see the point of prayer. If god knows what to do, has the power to do it, and is so loving that he will always do the compassionate thing, then how could prayer influence him? It could not; he would already do the right thing without being asked.
It’s very simple: “Coulda, shoulda, woulda” — If he could’ve helped and should’ve helped, then he would’ve helped (without having to be asked). If we came across someone bleeding in the road we would help that person without someone having to ask us. But we are to believe that god is not as ethical as us? He needs to be asked before it dawns on him to help? Nonsense! It just makes the conclusion inescapable: when little boys suffer and die from leukemia there can be no all-powerful all-good all-seeing god.
So, when it comes to prayer you can stop wasting your breath and your time; no one capable of answering is listening. If you want something it is up to you to get up off your knees (or off the podium) and work for it yourself.
And mealtime prayers to “bless” the food — especially in restaurants: don’t get me started on that!
FOOTNOTE:
1 Worldwide, about 6,098 people die each hour. The ratio of Catholics in the world population is 17.5%. That means that about 1,067 Catholics die each hour. Probably at least 90% of them prayed a Hail Mary at some point in their lives. That means there are 960 people for Mary to pray for each and every hour. That’s 16 per minute, which gives her less than 4 seconds per person. Maybe that’s just enough time to rattle off “Forgive Catherine Elizabeth Bernadette O’Sullivan” before moving on to the next name. With such a demanding schedule, I don’t know how she ever finds time to also “pray for us now,” and still put in so many guest appearances on Earth.
return
Kimbal Summers • 4 years ago
Well you have struck a sore point with me – in that – Jws don’t celebrate pagan holidays, but they end they prayers to the god Amum Ra the sun god Amum or Amon which was worshipped by the Ammonites and who was the mediator between God and man long before Christ came on the scene. Amun was ousted from the heavenly realm some time latter and replaced by the new Mediator and Christ – Jesus. Remember the old Christ ( the word CHRIST is a title meaning “anointed one” ) was Amon. I raised this point with J.w’s on the doorstep some years ago and they dropped the topic as soon as they knew who I was.
Such Knowledge is well known in the higher orders of The Masons and other Occult groups, but almost unheard of in religious groups like the J.W’S. Again another nail Jehovah’s Coffin for not revealing the truth to his people.
[ And of course in saying this for another discussion – the Jws also wear wedding rings, which also have pagan origin, just like the calendars days of the week and the months of the year – which J.F.Rutherford tried to change when he was in office. ]
So when Jesus came to his temple sanctuary in 1919 to inspect the household of faith and found them celebrating – Xmas, Easter and Birthdays going to war, wearing wedding rings and using pagan calenders; as well as, believing in demonic pyramids, and using the cross, and then ending all their prayers to the false mediator and god AMEN – it makes me wonder how the Watchtower Organization can claim to have been given “divine authority” over Christ’s household domestics, acting as his “earthly mouthpiece”, “channel of truth” and Jehovah’s loving wife !
To me, they have an arrogant self appointed authority like the clergy, and are no different than Christendom.
They recently proved this by riding the scarlet coloured beast ( the UN Nations in their interpretation ) by having a U.N Library card back in the early 1990’s.
1
•Reply•Share ›
Micky • 4 years ago
I agree that in many cases prayers are just nonsense from practical point of view. On the other hand it can help the one who prays, to generally gain better psychic condition or even it can help someone to cure his/her illness. This is proven fact that people believing in their recovery, people with positive mind and positive attitude have much higher probability of recovery. Sure, they will once die as prayer/positive mind cannot help in all cases but sometimes it helps.
Also, prayer is kind of meditation and although I am not expert in religions and philosophies using meditation I know it can be beneficial. Not to mention that we as materialistic society know a little about powers that are beyond our current scientific methods and I admit there can be some energies that can be connected with prayer/meditation. But almost for sure not any god as people imagine him/her:-)
So, I am inclined to tolerate and understand when people want to pray unless it is connected with some sort of fanaticism.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
smmcroberts Micky • 4 years ago
Hi Micky,
Yes, I agree: meditation and a positive outlook can have health benefits. I sometimes meditate myself. Our emotions release chemicals into the bloodstream that certainly affect our health for good or for bad. But none of this is “beyond science.”
When prayer includes some of the same physical processes as meditation (sitting quietly, breathing slowly, removing distractions and focusing your thoughts) then it’s going to be beneficial for the same reasons. Other activities can also provide such benefits: such as contemplating a good chess puzzle, or listening to soothing music in the dark.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William • 4 years ago
Catholic and JW prayer can be spoofed for sure. Prayer is actually about relationship, not a shopping list, not formulaic. It is multi-faceted, not just petitionary. JWs and many Catholics lack a personal, intimate relationship with God. It is about religion, ritual, works, not relationship. Those who know God in spirit and truth find prayer powerful and meaningful. It does not just change us, but it can even change God’s mind (e.g. Hezekiah; Abraham; Moses; Jesus, etc.). It is sad that some go from one religion to another and then to another false religion or no religion without ever knowing the most most beautiful, awesome, majestic, valuable being in the universe. He wants us to know and love Him in reciprocal relationship and prayer is part of this.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
smmcroberts William • 4 years ago
William,
I think that having an “intimate” “reciprocal” relationship with a spirit can also be spoofed for sure. But I don’t want to offend you, so I’ll let our readers use their imagination on this point.
If prayer can “change God’s mind” then the supplicant must be smarter than God for having come up with a better idea than the one God had in mind. Of course this is impossible if God is supposed to be all-knowing.
Please don’t presume to tell us what God wants; you have no way of knowing (and please don’t refer me to your books written by other men who also had no way of knowing.)
I think what’s really sad is that many people never break free from religion to see the world as it really is: unpopulated by gods or demons. It’s just us here, alone on this planet along with the other animals: no angels, channeled spirits, spaceship aliens, or Big-Foot to help us out. We need to drop our religious differences (along with our religions) and work together.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Loni Hull smmcroberts • 4 years ago
Big foot helped me re-roof my cabin the other day. Can that guy ever keep his footing on a tin roof! He comes to help out with chores every time I call him with my mind, which is why I can say with great authority that Vishnu does the same.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William Loni Hull • 4 years ago
There is a difference between myth (FSM) and evidence based views (Bible): http://www.gotquestions.org…
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Loni Hull William • 4 years ago
William, I spent my entire early life positively swimming in the type of evidence upon which you base your faith, and it took a tremendous amount of self-honesty to finally admit that it was all a heap of lies and accidental untruths (religious memes sincerely believed and passed down from generation to generation).
I like to think that even back when I was an elder and a pioneer, I maintained a “doubt file” in the back of my mind that never went away, and today I would say that http://www.jesusneverexisted.com is truer than anything I ever learned in 30 years of religious studies.
I understand the desire for a belief system that holds the darkness at bay; but my distaste for the requisite self-delusion is absolute.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William Loni Hull • 4 years ago
I understand a JW rejecting the Deity of Christ, but most atheists are not dull enough to reject the historicity of Christ.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Loni Hull William • 4 years ago
Oh no, you misunderstand. I accept the historicity of several hundred to several thousand people with the name Yeshua (Jesus) in Palestine before and during the first century A.D. What I cannot accept is that any of them was born of a virgin, died for my sins, was resurrected and ascended to heaven, and will someday be king of heaven and earth. All of those were later fraud added to bolster the myth of the meschiach, and somewhere in your heart, if you are any kind of student, you already know that.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William Loni Hull • 4 years ago
So, you believe that Jesus of the Gospels/Nazareth, son of Joseph/Mary existed, but He was not God, did not die on a cross as Lamb of God, did not rise from the dead? I understand that, but to deny Jesus of the Gospels vs Jesus the Mexican gardener is another matter.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Loni Hull William • 4 years ago
To be very direct, I do not find any of the claims within the gospels – or about them – to be compelling. The gospels smell of late first through 3rd-century marketing materials, with all of the editing, re-editing, and unlikely penman attribution that such a long period implies.
I’m really bored with this topic, to be honest, William. No personal offense intended. If I was more invested, I might pursue it further, but my life is far removed from religious thought these days.
See you around the comments sections.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William Loni Hull • 4 years ago
C.S. Lewis, Oxford, was an expert on myth. He rightly said that the Gospels are historical narrative, not myth. Luke was a careful historian, not a fairy tale author. You have confirmation bias?
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
smmcroberts William • 4 years ago
William,
C.S. Lewis wasn’t around in the first century, was he?
No historian who WAS around thought to mention Jesus: the world-shaking miracle-worker who performed in front of thousands of witnesses in life and whose death was accompanied by a mass resurrection of the dead witnessed by “many.”
Sorry, but that makes Jesus the miracle-worker unhistorical, no matter what C.S. Lewis or anyone else might say.
As for Luke being a “careful historian”: he completely missed the “slaughter of the innocents”: one of the most heinous atrocities ever committed, and one which forced Jesus’ parents to flee with him into Egypt (according to another Gospel). Instead, Luke chose to relate how some shepherds stopped by for a visit! That’s not my idea of a careful historian.
His “careful history” is also marred by accounts of virgin birth; angels; demons; an exorcism; dead people coming to life; a body flying up into heaven, etc. That is how one identifies an account as myth rather than history.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William smmcroberts • 4 years ago
Gospels/Acts are selective vs exhaustive history (Luke wrote Acts). Each Gospel writer had a specific purpose and target audience (Luke was to Greeks to show Jesus as Son of Man). Each stands true regardless of which details are included or excluded for a reason (composite picture combined). Using your logic, we should reject the historicity of Plato, etc.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
smmcroberts William • 4 years ago
William, I’m always so amazed at your esoteric knowledge; you know things that no one else does or possibly could! You actually know who wrote Acts and the book we call “Luke!” Wow!
You say “each stands true” even though the Gospels contradict one another time and time again. Just look at the genealogies given for Jesus in Matthew versus Luke for one glaring example: http://smmcroberts.net/reli…
My logic would have no affect on our acceptance of the historicity of Plato; he wasn’t a historian or biographer missing major episodes in the life of his subject. Nor did he write that Socrates flew up into heaven or came back from the dead.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William smmcroberts • 4 years ago
It is not hard to establish the authorship of Luke and Acts. Stick to your day job. The genealogies also emphasize different lines (Mary vs Joseph) and conformed to rules of the day (but added women, etc., which was unusual). They are to different target audiences with different focus, no contradiction. They also do not have to be exhaustive to be accurate. They establish the Messiahship of Jesus from the line of David. They are more of interest to Jews than us.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
smmcroberts William • 4 years ago
William, It’s evidently “hard to establish the authorship of Luke and Acts” for most scholars: “Modern scholarship generally rejects the view that Luke was the original author” http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
But you’re the man, William! I wouldn’t presume to compete with your vast intimate knowledge of the unknowable, so yes I’ll keep my day job, thank you.
If I were to say “Joseph’s father was Heli” and Jaymes were to say “Joseph’s father was Jacob,” I think you’d be quick to agree that we have contradicted each other. Now read MT 1:16 and Luke 3:23. When you can explain to me how a man can have two blood-line fathers I’ll grant you that this might not be a contradiction.
If one of these genealogies is supposed to be of Mary then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to at least mention Mary in the genealogy, do you? We even have a precedent for this: her cousin Elizabeth was mentioned in her brief genealogy (Luke 1:5.) (But I’ve covered all of these points of yours and more in the link I gave you, which you probably didn’t click on.)
These genealogies don’t “establish the Messiahship of Jesus from the line of David” if Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father (as the Bible claims he wasn’t.) It doesn’t matter a hoot what Joseph’s lineage was if he was no blood relation of Jesus. Maybe they put in the genealogies before they thought up the virgin birth.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
William smmcroberts • 4 years ago
Joseph was legal vs biological father. Virgin conception is true. There is a difference between modern, liberal pseudo-scholarship and evidence based conservative scholarship.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
smmcroberts William • 4 years ago
William, Joseph being the legal father of Jesus doesn’t answer any of the objections mentioned above.
What is the evidence that Luke wrote the book traditionally called “the Gospel of Luke”? Is it as good as the evidence you’ve given us that “virgin conception is true”? (i.e. someone said it was true.)
You seem to think that if someone says something you agree with then
that makes it “evidence based,” whereas if it’s something different from
what you were taught as a child then it must be pseudo-scholarship.
If you’re just going to keep commenting on these posts with the mainstream Christian beliefs that most of us have already seen through, and then you’re not going to answer the common-sense objections to those beliefs [e.g. we’re STILL waiting for you to tell us how the Schweitzer-like Jesus could be the Attila-like Jehovah http://www.jehovahswitnessb…] then you’re not adding anything to the discussion; you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Kimbal Summers • 4 years ago
As for the purpose of Prayer – it was mentioned in one film, and other sources, that such is “the sustainance / food of the gods”. When the people stopped praying to the gods their power base declined. The ( the gods ) of course got angry with the people for with holding this energy source and struck out at the people as a means to get even with former worshippers. Many times in scripture when Jehovah got angry, it was when the people left him and went after other gods.
Prayers are a refined form of energy, which the god’s feed off and sustain themselves. They are hooked on them like a drug addict is with drugs. When they stop receiving such, they get withdrawal symptoms and become pissed off with those who sustain their fix.
When Jehovah had divine control over creation, he was able to use a worshipper’s prayer to sustain himself and act as the essence to accomplish HIS will – The more intense the prayers, the quicker and easier it is to get ones desires met because of the “adrenalin rush” gained from the prayer. I say “his will” because a prayer has to be in harmony with HIS will not your own for it to work. Psalms is full of favourite prayers which when prayed assist Jehovah as the deity to get this adrenalin rush.
Thanking Jehovah at meal times for one’s food is a mark of appreciation and respect – assuming you believe he is the giver of all life.
With holding prayer is actually starving him and weakening his power.
•Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
smmcroberts Kimbal Summers • 4 years ago
Kimbal,
I agree to this extent: gods only “exist” in any sense when humans imagine that they do. Maybe that’s why we picture them as so egotistically vain; not only do they feed off our prayers, their very existence depends on our belief in them.
As more of us come to our senses the gods have been dying out. In fact, I don’t think there are really any still kicking–thank God! 😉
•Reply•Share ›