Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And I never suggested otherwise or suggested you thought otherwise.
You really think that God would expect that we stop such a prayer just because of a number? Not faulting Paul. It appears that he received his answer at that point. And if he did then you are correct. But that does not mean that you or I or anyone else must expect an answer by #3 and cease or be in vain. You are trying to read into the account something that is not there. Paul indicated that he received the word that God's grace was sufficient for him. At that point, Paul took it as final. Does that mean that everyone needs to know when it is final. Or that it will be after #3 (either clearly answered or quit trying anyway).
|
If Paul had continued asking, I'm sure God would have ignored him. Thus, it would have been vain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Your response is based on the presumption that there must be the constant speaking or writing of the word/name "Christ" or it is not about Him. It is a subtle way to cast aside those who do not feel the need to constantly repeat the obvious. I am not saying that we have no need to speak or write "Christ" at any time. But once the context is formed (e.g., the discussion is about people engaged in the active worship of Christ with their whole hearts and not just doing a routine without any actual thought of Christ) then you have no basis for such a statement.
You are trying so hard to exclude as many Christians from your definition of belief in Christ, and worship of Christ. By almost any means possible. Including mischaracterizing what they say. You do this by demanding that your lexicon of terminology is the only right one, therefore what I say is rejected as "incorrect" because I do not use your lexicon.
|
Your definition didn't seem to cover Christians doing things with their heart in it, but not for Christ. For example, Sunday church raffles. Some of the old ladies must put in a lot of effort to bake the cakes. But if it is not for Christ then does it really count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
BTW. Back in the second quote above, you sais that Paul "was genuine to pray . . . ." Do you think that genuine prayer is only prayer that is not vain? You think that someone is not genuinely praying even if it is ultimately in vain? "[G]enuine to pray" would seem to mean that it was what the prayer is actually intending to do. I assume that you really meant something else like "not in vain" or something like that. Genuine is not the opposite of "not in vain." I just think that you have a fixation on the word. Just like genuine church or genuine worship. You use the word as a qualifier intended to exclude others from what is being discussed (church, worship, prayer, etc.) But its meaning is not narrow enough for what you are trying to do. You are redefining it so that you can separate yourself from others. And that is exactly what Jesus taught us to do (NOT!).
|
[/QUOTE]
To me there is only prayer that is answered (not in vain), and prayer that is not answered i.e. in vain. The word genuine is interchangeable with the word vain because vanity speaks of the result, but genuine speaks of how we pray. Without genuine prayer there can only be vain results.