Talk:Prayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Prayer has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Prayer: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests:
    • Lead Way to short. See WP:LEAD. Orisons should be bold synom here.
    • Forms of prayer Aviod phrases like "The great spiritual traditions", that is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Bullet points need to be converted to prose. Also avoid weseal words like "Some anthropologists believe . . ."
    • The act of prayer No references. Lots of weseal words.
    • Prayer in Abrahamic religions The various subsections here should be summaries of the main article. For example look at Prayer in Christianity: main topics are The Early Church; Liturgical; Vocal; Meditative; Prayer of recollection; Contemplative prayer; Physical posture; Charismatic prayer: Speaking in tongues; A Christian philosophy of prayer; Christian Science Prayer; and Epistemological issues. Less than half of these topics are summarized. Your summary of Christian prayer in this article should only need small additions and tweaking to be the lead over at Prayer in Christianity. The same issue needs looking into throughout this section. No references for this section.
      • How is neopaganism an Abrahamic religion
    • Prayer in Eastern religions Same issues as last section. Also I am noticing the lack of animist traditions. Having only an Eastern section and a Abrahmic section means other traditions are left out.
    • Approaches to prayer Needs more references.
    • Experimental evaluation of efficacy of prayer This is slighty out of context without an introduction to the whole idea of Prayer healing. BTW Prayer healing is a redirect to this article and probably should be addressed directly and bolded.
    • Historical polytheistic prayer This is the first the first mention of scrafice related to prayer. Despite the earlier section of "Prayer in the Bible" The whole section seem out of place. Why leave out the Aztecs or the Vikings? And what about non-historical polytheistic prayer? No references
    • Etymology I would think this section would be first rather than last. No references
    • Misc For some reason Prayer Warrior and Prayer group redirect here they should probably go to Prayer in Christianity but they are not really dealt with there either.--BirgitteSB 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    The article has little on Japan. I've listed some topics related to Japan on the article's talk page. Fg2 11:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Prayer was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 7, 2006
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prayer article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Prayer Efficacy (reference from Deuteronomy?!)

Sorry but I really don't get why they wrote this at the end of the Prayer Efficacy section:

Deuteronomy 6:16 states, "You shall not test the Lord thy God"[18], reflecting the notion of some that prayer cannot, or should not, be tested.

Can someone explain, before I delete it?--Quinceps (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it means that prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all, at least not by the definitions given to it in the Abrahamic religions. God would simply ignore such prayers. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you are interpreting the verse. It merely states "You shall not test the Lord thy God". You just made up the parts about "prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all" and "God would simply ignore such prayers". The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of the verse in question was asked for, and Blanchardb was merely explaining the verse based on his/her understanding of it. Personal attacks are not appropriate simply because you disagree with an asked-for explanation. Simply put, The Biggest Lie Ever Told it is pointless to attack someone for their expressed point of view 3 months after it was expressed, and your time could be better spent instead trying to give YOUR answer to the question from Quinceps. If you don't, you have no business trying to bawl out someone else based on YOUR interpretation of THEIR words. Just think about that for a minute. As far as the issue in question, the word "test" in the scriptures often refers to "test, try, or prove." So, it would be well if this sentence was removed, if it hasn't been already, as the sentence above was worded based on an out-of-context definition. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jgstokes Are you serious? PrayExtraHard (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In regards to what, PrayExtraHard? If you are referring to the comment I directed to The Biggest Lie Ever Told, I assure you, I was in earnest. Personal attacks are not objective or purposeful, and the user in question had no business bawling out the previous user for his/her response to the query beginning this discussion. If you are referring to my expressed opinion that the sentence in question is misleading based on an out-of-context definition, I was in earnest about that as well. Definitions taken out of context are always damaging to what is supposed to be an objective article. So, I assure you, I was quite serious about both matters. Does that answer your question? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no 3 month statute of limitation for commenting on someone else's incorrect POV. PrayExtraHard (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's true. However, who are we to determine what is "incorrect POV"? The user beginning this topic of discussion asked for an explanation of the statement in question, and the first response was a reply complying with that request. Just because the second replier may not have necessarily agreed with the first replier doesn't make the first reply an incorrect POV. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, this sentence is somewhat out of context based on the definition of "tempt" as contained in the KJV of the verse in question. So I would be in favor of striking the sentence from the article if it's still there. I do happen to be serious on this issue as well. There seems to be no sure way to define a so-called "incorrect POV" as far as Wikipedia goes. Just because the first replier may hold a different perspective on things than I do doesn't make his/her response any less valid because WP is not governed by what one editor thinks, nor is it controlled by what one editor perceives as an "incorrect POV." At any rate, incorrect POV or not, the second replier had no business personally attacking the viewpoint of the first replier simply because he/she disagreed with the viewpoint of him/her. Think about that for a moment. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other verses that could have been used to explain the fact that studies have not found a link between prayer and results, such as

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

and/or

James 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

which imply that if a prayer is not answered, it is the fault of the one doing the praying. But the quote that is in the article, "You shall not test the Lord thy God" is not a good one.

User:Blanchardb wrote, "Basically, it means that prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all, at least not by the definitions given to it in the Abrahamic religions. God would simply ignore such prayers."

I wrote "...you are interpreting the verse..." and "You just made up the parts about "prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all" and "God would simply ignore such prayers".".

User:Jgstokes then sidetracked the discussion with false accusations of "Personal attacks" and fabricated time limits for commenting on incorrect statements.

All this is distracting from the fact that no legitimate, recognized study has ever found a link between prayer and results. The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me address the issues one by one. First of all, when we refer to these scriptures, which version of the Bible are you using? The one that seems to be used most commonly for WP references seems to be the King James Version (KJV), and the wording therein is slightly different from what you said.
The KJV of Mark 11:24 is a slightly different rendering from the same verse listed here. It says: "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."
So too is the KJV of James 5:15 slightly different. It reads: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."
So there are two different versions of the same verse. Since the KJV seems to be the WP standard Bible used for quotations of this kind, I would suggest using the KJV version of these verses.
Now, to The Biggest Lie Ever Told: You categorically stated what the verses you quoted "imply." But it seems to me that by doing so, you are doing exactly the same thing as what you accused Blanchardb of: that is, interpreting the verse and "making up" what it means. Now, I am just as willing to justify you in your interpretation of things, which I believe to be mostly correct, as I was to justify Blanchardb in his/her interpretation, not that I believe either of you were entirely correct, but not that I believe either of you were entirely incorrect either. If it was wrong for Blanchardb to "make up" an "interpretation" of the verse in question, it must likewise be wrong for you to put your own slant on the verses you quoted, which therefore makes me wrong to stand by both or either of you in your definitions, which makes your statement about what I'm doing 100% the truth. However, if you feel justified in putting your own slant on the verses you quoted, then why do you deny others the right to do the same, and why do you call me into question for taking their part? Perhaps I misjudged your intentions. That happens often, and if that's the case, I apologize. But at the same time, if you assert your right to put a slant/interprepation/explanation on certain verses, then please allow other people the right to do the same, and please do not take out any anger you might have about people disagreeing with you on those bold enough to defend such people. I may indeed have "fabricated time limits" and I was not justified in doing so. But it is never a sidetrack for me to agree with an editor, even if my agreement may cause sidetracks because someone disagrees with me. We all have a right to our own opinions here. WP is not governed by the thoughts or ideas of one editor alone. Nor can or should any one editor be justified in asserting his or her opinion above all others without first gathering competent evidence to suport such a viewpoint and respectfully listening to arguments on both sides. That is what I was trying to do here, and if I came up on what is perceived to be the wrong side of the issue, then I'm sorry you don't agree with me. But just as I do not govern WP policy on the way in which discussions are conducted, neither do you, and neither does any one single person. It is only by working together toward a common goal that we can make these articles as accurate and as readable as possible. I realize there will be those who take exception to my commenting on these issues, those who criticize me for writing such a long reply, and those who disagree with me 100%. But that doesn't make my right to voice my opinion any less valid, nor does it mean that I'm right or wrong. I leave all this for you to reflect upon and consider. Keep up the good work. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was quoting from the NIV. There was a time when I preferred the KJV (I thought that God and Jesus talked like that!), but not now. I dispute your contention that the KJ "seems to be the WP standard Bible used for quotations of this kind", but of course anyone is free to do so if they prefer it. I no longer consider that English as written in 1611 has any special significance. Also, the KJV also contained (and many modern copies still contain) the fraudulent Comma Johanneum which was used to justify the Trinity.

I consider that the POV creation by User:Blanchardb above exceeded my deduction. If you think they are of the same magnitude, please read them again.

Once again, the main issue is that no legitimate, recognized study has ever found a link between prayer and results. Here is another of many examples of what this can lead to: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html "An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday." The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The citations in your earlier post make more sense now. The NIV also seems to be popular on WP. I still feel that the KJV is most common on WP for biblical citations, but I may be wrong. It just seems like most of those biblical references I've come upon have come from the KJV. The NIV works just as well, though. And my so-called "contention" happened to be more of an observation based upon what I've come upon in the past. You can dispute that all you want, but I think you'll agree that it's pointless to dispute an observation.
Just what is YOUR definition of the difference between interpretation (what you accused Blanchardb of) and deduction (the way you termed your own interpretation of the verses you cited)? The former has been defined by one dictionary as "1. the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication. 2. an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation. 3. a conception of another's behavior. 4. a way of interpreting. The latter has been defined by the same dictionary as "a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true; a conclusion reached by this process." The former deals with opinion, the latter with fact.
I will risk the chance of angering you by saying that it doesn't surprise me to hear you in the same breath call Blanchardb's viewpoint an opinion, and establishing yours as fact. I will state again as emphatically as I can by writing that I am neither in favor of or actively opposing either viewpoint. Another reading of both sides of the issues leads me to the deduction that you are both right. And I will continue to advance my own opinion that this is the case as much as it is necessary. I have apologized once for something I earlier wrote that I now regret, so my conscience is void of any ill feelings towards you, whether you accept that or not. I have the greatest personal respect for you as a fellow WP editor, but am tired of having my viewpoint twisted to suit your interpretation of what you think I'm trying to do by agreeing with both of you.
I agree that the main issue is that no legitimate, recognized source has ever found a link between prayer and results. However, if you continue to seek out and cite ONLY the sources which state that there appears to be no link between prayer and results, you never will find those that prove there IS a link. There are always "results" when prayers are given, expected or not, good or bad. And to blame prayer on something like what was recounted in your latest citation appears to be a close-minded approach to the whole issue. The examples proving that prayer works are scattered throughout the same bible you cited, and are also available, on rare occasions, on news websites. However, the media consistently seems to rejoice in accentuating the negative to the extent of overlooking the positive. And in the source you cited, it was stupid for the family to rely solely on prayer when it was obvious their daughter needed medical assistance. If you start saying you can't prove prayer is ineffective based on the example of someone who should have gotten medical help but didn't, you may be on dangerous ground. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a tedious comparison of what Blanchardb wrote in defense of the original quote, to what I quoted and wrote. Warning, there are quotes within quotes. In defense of the original quote Deuteronomy 6:16 states, "You shall not test the Lord thy God"[18], reflecting the notion of some that prayer cannot, or should not, be tested.,Blanchardb wrote "Basically, it means that prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all, at least not by the definitions given to it in the Abrahamic religions. God would simply ignore such prayers." In attempting to explain the lack of proof between prayer and results, he created the excuse that if anyone was trying to evaluate the effectiveness of a prayer, at that time or any time in the future, it would not pass definition of prayer. Notice that Deuteronomy 6:16 does not mention prayer. Blanchardb then went on to declare categorically, without any basis whatsoever, that "God would simply ignore such prayers". Show us the link between "You shall not test the Lord thy God" and "God would simply ignore such prayers". There is no link. Is there a similar link between violating the other "You shall nots" in the Bible, and having your prayers ignored? I wrote

There are other verses that could have been used to explain the fact that studies have not found a link between prayer and results, such as

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

and/or

James 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.


which imply that if a prayer is not answered, it is the fault of the one doing the praying.

Notice that in both verses, faith is required in order for the prayer to be answered. Therefore, if your prayer was not answered, your faith was insufficient. If A+B=C, and B is not equal to zero, then A does not equal C.

Of course, most people have learned the hard way that it doesn't matter how much faith they have, their prayers will not be answered. The millions of people starving in Ireland during the Famine prayed for food, but there were no loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes, nor was there manna from heaven. The church in Rome even organized prayer-a-thons for them, but the deaths continued. What do you conclude from that? That they had insufficient faith? That God ignored their prayers because he knew that 150 years later, we would be evaluating it to determine if he was ignoring the prayers? Or that "There are always "results" when prayers are given, expected or not, good or bad.". Or can we conclude that there is no link between prayer and results? After you read "Wisconsin Parents Didn't Expect Daughter to Die During Prayer" and you look at the girl's photo http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html do you conclude that her parent's prayers were answered? Is it OK, because she is now with her heavenly father? You wrote, "... it was stupid for the family to rely solely on prayer when it was obvious their daughter needed medical assistance". If prayer is effective, and if the verse, "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." is true, why was it "stupid for the family to rely solely on prayer"? This is an encyclopedia. How much wishful thinking and folklore should it contain? Does it concern you that some people actually believe these myths? The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) It's clearly obvious to me that based on your first misrepresentation of what I said in defense of Blanchardb, you have convinced yourself that it is perfectly permissible to "find holes" in whatever I say, and that you are determined at any cost to discredit my viewpoint as a defender of the user in question on this matter. I guess I can live with that. I repeat, there are always results to every prayer, expected or not, good or bad. And I add to this that these results often come at a different time than expected. When we take it upon ourselves to second-guess God by assuming prayers are not answered simply because the answers may not have been what was expected, were not delivered when expected, and were different from the way in which we thought they would be given, then we are on very dangerous ground. So, let me deal with your renewed objections to my viewpoint one by one.
First, what is the basis for your statement that IF prayers are not answered, then your faith is not sufficient. I know of hundreds of examples where prayers have not been answered and yet a lot of faith has been exercised. As just one of them, I was one of many Church members who prayed that President Hinckley would be able to be at April Conference like he wanted to. I believe that the united faith of the other Church members who likewise prayed for this blessing was a sufficient demonstration of our faith. However, President Hinckley died anyways. So, what are we to conclude? Was President Hinckley merely speaking out of habit than real desire when he said what he said at the close of last Conference? Were some Church members being so unfaithful to their covenants that the Lord took him away to punish us all? Was it just all a big joke for a bunch of "Mormons" to think that their prayers could preserve their prophet? Or did the Lord have a higher purpose in mind? When answers don't come, it is not necessarily because sufficient faith hasn't been exercised, nor is it because the prayers aren't sincere or faith-filled enough to "make God change his mind". It's often simply because God has a higher purpose in mind. If you can accept that, that is a key to understanding how prayer works, and how even when results, timetables or other issues seem to go unresolved.
Now, on to the two examples you cited in your last response. As far as the Ireland hunger problem, I haven't read about it. Not knowing the facts, I would not care to judge the story based on nonexistent knowledge. But my answer based on what I DO know and WOULD care to comment about relates also to the second example about the family relying solely on prayer and having the daughter die because of it. I imagine in both cases that there had been warnings about both the approaching famine in Ireland and about this young lady's health situation. I'm not taking about prophetic warnings here. I'm taking about people who knew the people involved and the factors they were facing and had the expertise to comment on it. Someone who could tell that times of famine were coming in Ireland, and a medical professional who knew what had to be done for the girl. If the obvious things COULD have been done to prepare the people of Ireland for the famine, such as taking care of food storage, and they weren't done, then God would not save the people of Ireland from their own stupidity simply because millions were praying for their relief. Likewise, if the girl SHOULD have gotten medical attention and the advice to do so was ignored by the family in question, God would not save that little girl's life simply because her family was praying for her. It sounds a bit heartless, doesn't it? But again, if you understand one thing, you understand why things like this happen: God does not take away the people's power of choice. But with the freedom to act in place, if they choose the act, they choose the consequences, good or bad. Simply put, if the people of Ireland failed to lay up in store for the famine as they were likely advised to, the Lord would not prevent the famine from coming simply because they weren't prepared. Likewise, if the family failed to get the girl the proper medical attention that was needed, the Lord would not prevent the girl's death simply because the family failed to follow through on what should have been done. God is merciful and just. But more than that: he is perfectly merciful and perfectly just. He wouldn't take away the power to choose from the people of Ireland or the family in question simply to save the former from famine and the latter from losing a loved one. If He did, He would cease to be God. Force takes away morality. In other words, if God had forced the people of Ireland to lay up in store as instructed, it would be His choice, not theirs. Same with the family. If He spared the girl's life in spite of the fact that they did not get her the necessary treatment, it would be HIS actions, not theirs. I hope that all made sense.
Well, I think I've given you more than enough to chew on. From your comments, I can't tell whether you are a member of the Church like I am. But if you are, I'd be greatly surprised to hear that what I said was news to you. God will not go contrary to His nature. If He does, he ceases to be perfect, thus ceasing to be God. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) is right. I have just wasted 50 minutes of my life ... and I can never get it back. Good luck, sir. If I am ever in Salt Lake City, maybe I can buy you a beer (figuratively speaking, of course) The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jgstokes wrote "I know of hundreds of examples where prayers have not been answered and yet a lot of faith has been exercised." Bingo! There are millions of cases where prayers have not been answered and yet a lot of faith has been exercised. And there is a reason for that. It doesn't work. Ever. Not even a little bit. It would be nice if it were true, but it isn't. I understand that it is hard to accept, but there you have it. PrayExtraHard (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
So because there are so many cases of prayer not being answered, you automatically assume and assert to me that prayer does not work? I could rattle off at least half a hundred examples proving that prayer does work. Of course, judging from your responses in the past, it's useless to try and convince you of something you don't believe. In other words, no matter what I say, you will always be of the opinion that prayer does not work because that's all you look for. And you will never convince me that prayer does not work because I have too many personal experiences to the contrary. The best we can do is agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I bear you no ill will for your expressed viewpoint on these issues and trust that you bear me no ill will for mine. However, the core of this issue is not personal belief but what should be in the article. And since there must be those like me out there who have seen prayer work and know that it does, something about that should perhaps be added to make this article truly objective. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Another dead child at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343148,00.html "The Worthingtons belong to Oregon City's Followers of Christ Church. According to church tradition, when members become ill, fellow worshippers pray and anoint them with oil." "Dozens of children have been buried in the parish cemetery over the past 50 years, and a 1998 analysis by The Oregonian newspaper found that many of the deaths could have prevented with medical care." PrayExtraHard (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Third opinion request

I came here in reaction to the Wikipedia third opinion request. Please note that this does not really seem to be appropriate for WP:3O, as more than two users are involved. Consider a WP:RfC in the future. Also, by now this seems to be more a discussion about the efficiency of prayer than a question about the article proper. Anyways, I assume that a third opinion is desired about the appropriateness of the sentence "Deuteronomy 6:16 states, "You shall not test the Lord thy God"[18], reflecting the notion of some that prayer cannot, or should not, be tested.", with the reference pointing to the appropriate Bible verse.

In my opinion, this is a violation of WP:NOR, the policy against original research. The Bible is a primary source, and its interpretation has been a major specialty of different classes of experts for many centuries. Applying parts of religious texts to modern situations is not trivial at all. If a reliable source can be found that uses this reasoning, then this sentence could be included with a clear attribution to the author(s). Essentially, this would require a concrete, notable and competent "some" in the current version, and a clear attribution to this particular source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the sentence from the article. Bebopadopoulos (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally inserted this sentence, and I followed this entire discussion without intervening. I will abide by the decision, and I will follow Stephan Schulz's advice before reinserting it. Additionally, I fully intend to enforce the application of this decision on anyone who might want to unilaterally revert it. In the mean time, my primary intention is to get this article to FA status, and there is a to-do list on top of this talk page should anyone not know what's next. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested at WP:3O but havign looked at this page, I dont really have any idea what it's about. Can someone enlighten me? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The request listed there linked the Prayer Efficacy (reference from Deuteronomy?!) section above. It began in December 2007 and was taken up again this month. It's about a line at the end of the Prayer#Efficacy of prayer section. — Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] categories

This notice is on the 'religion' category page:

"This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories when appropriate."

Category "Prayer" is the correct subcategory.--Editor2020 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on this editor's interpretation of that policy on the talk page for Angel. ◄Zahakiel► 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] God vs. god

Even though most religions capitalize the term "God", there are some that do not, and because of this the term must not be capitalized in the article. If you revert an edit that capitalizes "God", please refer to this thread on the talk page. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in an earlier thread of the same title on this same talk page. I invite you, Blanchardb, to see that thread. According to that, it IS appropriate according to WP policy to capitalize "God" unless speaking of "a god." As far as I know, the regulations set therein are still valid. Because of this, I'm not sure where you got the impression that "the term must not be capitalized in the article". This seems to be incorrect. However, if WP policy has changed since the last post was made on this issue in that earlier topic, I'd appreciate being made aware of that so that I can change my viewpoint and what viewpoint I advance and defend accordingly. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my intervention here is that there seems to have been an edit war recently. But in the particular occurrence where the edit was occurred, "god" means any god of any religion, so I don't think it is appropriate to have it capitalized in that particular instance. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 09:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars are never constructive, so I can see why you said what you said. However, according to WP policy as I understand it, if the sentence was something like "the children of Israel gave sacrifice to other gods," or something like that, then it would be lower case. However, if the sentence was something like "Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament," then in that case, it would be capitalized. I'd have to know what the sentence in question was before I agreed or disagreed with you. Could you post a copy of it here so I can have a look at it and form an opinion? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prayer in New Age spirituality

The article has nothing to say about this. This would lend one to suspect that New Agers don't pray. I feel the article is amiss without any discussion of this perspective. __meco (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you help solve that problem? --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

there are 4 types of prayer thanks, asking, praise, sorrow, there are different ways to remember such as TAPS or SPAT.

[edit] vain repetition

Removed "to avoid 'vain repetitions'" from /*Christianity*/ for neutrality requirement of wikipedia. The problem was that whilst it is a fact that some protestant groups avoid the Lord's prayer, that it is done to avoid "vain repetition", is not a fact but an opinion. Whilst it may be the opinion of some Christians who do not say the Lord's Prayer, the theological opinions of some groups or denominations should not be given preference in a wikipedia article on prayer over the opinion of any other group or denomination. A Catholic might say, "Some denominations avoid the Lord's prayer, mistakenly believing it to constitute vain repetition." A Jehovah's Witness might say, "Some denominations say the Lord's prayer, but that is vain repetition." Who is to say which of them is right? Certainly not a wikipedia editor, at least not in the wiki. Oliver Low (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)