I received an email this morning...
...from a reader. That, in itself is a surprise. I've found only a few places, so far, in which to 'advertise' this journal and I don't think it's been up long enough to be discovered by search engines. I've assumed, if I am getting readers, they are few and accidental.
    This reader took offense at my use of prayer to influence someone's life "for ill" and informed me that, at any rate, prayer doesn't work "for ill" and, besides, it probably doesn't work for people who aren't Christians.
    This email reminded me of the article I read some time ago that has allowed me to know that prayer can work regardless of the nature of the request. The article was an interview with two people who are famous for their study of prayer and its effects. One was Larry Dossey. The other, whose name I don't remember, was a woman who has at least one book out about the power of prayer.
    During the interview the moderator, having been impressed with the evidence of experiments set up to observe whether prayer was effective, asked if prayer only worked when its ends were benign. One or the other of the participants responded by saying that, in fact, they had specifically designed experiments to exclude prayer for anything but benign or healing purposes, not wishing to encourage harmful prayer, so could not answer the question. The other agreed and further surmised that if benign prayer works, there is no reason to believe that what might be considered malignant prayer does not, and cautioned readers to be careful choosing their prayed requests.
    As well, both, at various points in the article, confirmed that prayer works regardless of the god-orientation (or lack thereof) of the participants.
    Although I'd never questioned whether prayer could be successful, regardless of the subject, every time I pray for something or someone I think of these two reports on the power of prayer. This particular event of hatred is the first and only time I have consciously prayed for someone's destruction, and, just as I have had faith that any praying throughout my life for someone's 'good' has 'worked', and have, occasionally, been privileged to witness the results, I have faith that my prayers for the object's of my hatred destruction are also 'working'.
    First of all, my experience is that prayer needn't be interceded by a god in order to 'work'. Although I see no reason not to direct prayer through a god-satellite for distribution, I see no reason why this is necessary. My concept and experience of god is, at any rate, strikingly different than that of the Abrahamic and/or anthropomorphic gods, so to say that I pray to a god actually confuses the issue. My understanding and experience of prayer tells me that the activity of prayer is completely human and 'works', without us yet understanding how or why, at a completely human level.
    Secondly, although my prayer for the "destruction" of someone appears to be, well, certainly not benign, my belief is that, in this particular person's life the kind of destruction for which I am praying will not only help that individual to be less harmful to others (probably not to me; I assume, as I pray, that since this person has left me responsible for cleaning up the damage they did to me, praying for their destruction will not help me, but that remains to be seen) but will help a score, at least, of other people malaffected by that individual's life and actions. So, although I use words like "destruction" and "malignant" to describe the subject of my praying in this matter, my underlying belief is that what I am praying for will be of benefit to everyone involved, including the object of my hatred.
    In case you're wondering, my mother's concept of god is a common, anthropomorphic conception. I know this because she and I talk about god and religion often. She is the descendant of a long line of Methodist ministers, deacons and others attracted to spiritual matters, and encouraged, in her children, an interest in matters of the spirit, including seeking out a knowledge of the historical drama involved in the creation of sacred texts. Despite her common conception of god and the fact that she considers herself a Christian (I asked her this question, once again, as recently as a week ago), she also is not sure that Jesus was "the only begotten Son of God", does not think that believing this, or the act of baptism, are necessary to be "saved", is not quite sure what from what we need to be saved and, although she believes some people are evil enough to be excluded from a benign afterlife, is hard pressed to name anyone, including, for instance, Jack-the-Ripper (her example) who would probably have been or will be condemned.

AN ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: To those of you who may be tempted to contact me, as well as sending me email, there is also a guestbook attached to this site which you may access by clicking the link at the top right of this page. The guestbook includes the option of privacy, if you do not wish your comments to be published.
FURTHER GUESTBOOK ADDENDUM: The Guestbook is, currently, unavailable.
- posted by gail rae @ 09:04   email...this post