Praying

[technodad]

I know this has been discussed as part of other threads before, but the recent news articles discussing the fact that "everyone" is praying for Nelson Mandela has got me thinking about it again.

Why do people pray?

Clearly there are many people across the world who pray, from the rich Monarchy, to the African child dying from Malaria. Some people pray that they will get a parking space close to the supermarket, others that their daddy won't abuse them, and some that they will survive the night. Yet, sadly, children are still abused, and die, whilst fortunate people like me don't have to walk far to the shops.

So, since it is evident that if prayer does work, then it doesn't work in the way people think it should, then why do people do it. Is it:

a) Because people think it does work in a simple "ask and you shall get" sort of way, even though they see poor African children on TV breathing their last breath, which provides overwhelming evidence that it doesn't? (these people can't all be uneducated and stupid, so why think it?)

b) Because the act of praying and belief gives them an inner strength to continue with life despite it's hardships and they genuinely don't believe it will work (this seems a contradiction to me)?

c) Because people don't think about it in a conscious way and the un-thinking habit produces a reduction in stress (like clicking the end of a pen, or biting ones finger nails)?

d) I don't know what else? any other thoughts?

Also, what are people praying for with Mandela? Do they want him to survive for ever (they seem to)? Or are they praying that he will pass peacefully to "heaven" when he does finally pass? Since he is regarded as such a saviour, then surely he is guaranteed a pain free route and pride of place, so why does everyone need bother?

I would be interested in the views of any faith, or those of none equally.

Techno

Jesus spends a large amount of the NT rubbishing the Old Testament. It is pretty clear, IMO, that we are not entitled to keep on acting like sheep and pointing to outdated bigotries in the Bible as support for gay-bashing or anything else

Does he? When? Can you provide some verses where he does this. All I'm aware of is him saying that (far from "rubbishing" the OT) he'd come to fulfil it's laws.

It is also easier not to bother engaging with these threads but I do so because of a genuine desire to connect with people. If you can come over and keep out the cat tray I can answer your questions! .

Clean out not keep!!

I would make the cat do it!

By the way, how did you know I find it hard to keep out of cat litter trays?

Techno I will be back soon for you to pour scorn on my deepest beliefs!

Cat also pooped in dining room it's all a bit crazy here chez Italian!

Well at least there is less to clean in the litter tray!

definition for Christianity
Is there one ??
Being a Christian is being part of a faith/religion. Believing in God, believing that he made the world, sent his "son" Jesus down to earth to die on a cross to enable the population to be forgiven for their sins. Knowing that everybody Sins and knowing it is okay to Sin as it is human nature to do so and knowing that if we seek forgiveness that we can have it.
Therefore Christians pray to seek forgiveness, help , strength from God/Jesus.

Judaism- Follow the Torah Bresheit (Genesis), Shemot (Exodus), Vayicra (Leviticus), Bamidbar (Numbers), and Devarim (Deuteronomy). Or "The old Testament"
They believe in God and believe that the Torah lists the way in which all Jews should live. They have some writings in the scriptures about Jesus but do not see him as the "son of God".

Sorry to kind of rant but there seems to be a lot of wrongly directed remarks on here about the christian faith when actually it is from the Jewish faith

Back I hope you do not think I am ignoring you, This is what you said back at Sun 16-Jun-13 12:34:26 ... you quoted me ... Italiangreyhound You said the Bible has been used to condone slavery, yet Christians were at the forefront of the move to abolish it and then said The bible certainly does condone slavery. It may have invented the idea of inferior races who are born slaves, but can you remind me of the basis for the last part? There may be one, but nothing springs to mind.

A quick google produced this, it may answer your question, I am not agreeing with any of it of course at all and have not looked at dept into why slavery was condoned. I have however voluntered in a capacity with an organisation based in a charity to do with slavery and have a long standing hatred of all forms of enslavement. I have don't think any right thinking Christian today would ever want to condone it!

Slavery has not ended it is sadly alive and well and all over the world. The fight goes on. The slavery which Wilberforce faught was part of history and you know the story.

I think it was significant that Wilberforce was a Christian, just my opinion feel free to disagree with me. "William Wilberforce ... he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784?1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, which resulted in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce (I love Wickipedia, just ask Pedro). Where is dear Pedro?

Ellie not sure what they quoted but they could have quoted Galatians 3:28. New International Version (©2011) "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Sorry Back I missed out the link!!

www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

OK, Techno I have time to answer but just for the record I won't be badgered (or cat-herded!) into answering anything, if you ask I am under no obligatin to give an answer and if I chose not to that's my business.

Here goes....

You said technodad Sun 16-Jun-13 16:20:57

m.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/oct/23/dinosaurs.science

Look - dinosaurs got cancer millions and millions of years before humans even existed!

I belive in dinosaurs, I believe they died out. It's no huge shock to know how or why or what killed them. Personally I like this one better...

Two dinosaurs watching as the ark sails away and one says to the other 'Oh Crap, was that today!".

And

Techno you said ... I still have a massive issue with Italian's answer earlier (sorry for disappearing for a while, I had to sacrifice a goat in the garden to make the rains come). so that was you Techno it could have been a bit earlier so I did not have to water the plants! And more importantly Italian - You stick by your view that god made the world and he made it perfect, but you can't give any explanation for how it went wrong, other than some vague comments about angels and an idea that maybe god knew we were going to mess it up).

It's not new to me that diosaurs died out and it doesn't shake my world. No I can't explain it all, I have no evidene or proof but my faith is that the world was made good and it was because of free will it was not possible for it to be completely lovely all the time. For exmpale if I kept my daughter (aged 8, same age as my mentality apparently ) were to stay indoors all the time and never venture out, she would be safe but not free. Same for the cat for that matter! He can't go out yet because he has not had his second flu shot. I am worried about him going out, getting into fights with other cats etc, but I want him to have his freedom. Now before you jump up and down and poke holes in my argument, I think the world was created good by God, I can't prove it, but you can't prove it was not.

Thistledew - Sun 16-Jun-13 16:27:37 - you said Which came first? Angels or dinosaurs? Please cite your sources in your answer.

Angels first, of course, A comes before D! No really, well angels. 2 Peter 2:4 (The message) 'God didn?t let the rebel angels off the hook, but jailed them in hell till Judgment Day.' The rebellion of the angels was before God created the earth. The fallen agnel the devil was talked about in the garden of Edan. Now before it gets all Creatonist, I am not a creationist. But I do believe that the way things are talked about in the Bible are really things that have meaning but did not necessarily happen in the way the Bible describes. Hence as I have said many times I am an evangelical but do not take the Bible literally.

I hope that will satisfy you, Thistledew, but secretlty know it will not! So if not let's just say.... Dinosaurs, after angels but before humans (because h comes after d in the alphabet!)

techno dad on Sun 16-Jun-13 16:30:31 you said My big question for you Italian: My last couple of posts have proven beyond any doubt that your "belief" with respect to why bad things happen in the world, is wrong and clearly baseless. So, will you ignore these facts and continue with what you believed before, or adjust your theories (like any scientist would) with a new theory based upon real facts?
If you choose to keep your previous unfounded belief against the real evidence, how can you justify it (without using the words "trust" or "love" or any other non-specific blurb)?

I have already said that free will is part of the world/universe when that choice and freedom came in in relation to other things I can't say, I was not there. I have never claimed to be a scientist so am under no obligation to ...adjust your theories (like any scientist would).... Also you seem to assume the things you are saying are new to me that I have never thought or grappled with these issues before? I have. I was not brainwashed by anyone ever. I have been a Christian 30 years and came to faith as an adult. I will never understand it all but then I don't really understand human love, or any kind of love really, it often doesn't make sense! So yes, you are totally right that it boils down to love and trust. But it does involve thought.

yamsareyammy my interpretation of 'radical fundamentalists' would be people who take the Bible literally (and I think out of context - although no one I've ever heard of really takes everything literally) and would be very unloving towards people who do not agree with them. I use the term 'flexible' to try and mean 'accepting' or 'inclusive' as the opposite of 'radical fundamentalists'.

I love the idea JugglingFromHereToThere of holding things in the light.

back very glad you don't want to string us up! You said The power of religion is in the millions of respectable and kind people who support it. Not so IMHO. Who ever goes to follow a religion for that reason? Jesus started with 12! Whatever you believe about the truth of Christianity I really don't think that the masses are the reason people join and become religious or radical. If kindly old aunties sell it why have you not joined? Because they don't!

Thistle if you want to do something positive to stop the evil in Uganda you could sign this petition.... It's very out of date but I kind of feel it can't do any harm to sign.

www.allout.org/en/actions/uganda-now

And Ellie if you are worried (as I am) about FGM you can visit this site...

28toomany.org/

I expect you have seen this documentary, it is very distressing. I watched it a while ago, I had to watch bits of it with the sound down. It is so terrible. I don't want to bring a downer on to this lovely thread but you are right, there are real issues behind these themes, and it is not that I only want to protect my corner. If I stopped believing in God would all this change, no, but maybe my ability to fight for what is right would change.

www.channel4.com/programmes/the-day-i-will-never-forget/4od

I don't mean this at all a patronising way, I just mean that I too worry about these things and believe in acting for good if I can.

As I said before I think you would find we have more in common than you think!

Bless you all, you know what I mean!

Italian

That verse does not condemn slavery, any more than it condemns being a Gentile or female. It acknowledges that slaves exist, but reassures them that, never mind, Jesus loves you".

There are no passages condemning slavery in the Bible that I have ever heard - and I think it's the kind of thing Christians would quote ad nauseum.

Yes - I'm aware of Wilberforce and I am aware that he was a Christian. If you think it's "significant" that he's a Christian, then I think it's equally significant that the slave owners who vehemently opposed this were also Christian.

If Christianity is such a marvellous thing, fighting the cause of the "underdog" - I wonder why it took 1800 odd years to bother doing anything about one of the worst atrocities known to man?

Since our country was almost exclusively made up of Christians, it becomes all but irrelevant when once Christian does a good thing. All the good things were done by Christians as indeed were all the bad things!

Sunshine I don't think anyone on here is struggling with the difference between Christianity & Judaism. I find your comment a bit odd. Jesus was Jewish, a follower of Jewish law, his coming was supposedly prophesied in the OT - which is why the OT forms part of the Bible. I suspect many Christians wish it didn't as it's something of an embarrassment. But that's their problem, not ours.

Malenky

I've been eating my dinner puzzling over why anyone would suggest that for much of it's history, the Bible would not be taken literally. I think I know where you're coming from now - although I still think you're wrong.

When I said that the Bible was taken literally, I meant that people (generally) did believe in Adam & Eve, Original Sin, Abraham, Moses....and so on. Genesis was (again, generally) believed to have been a historical explanation of how God made the world.

But all of this was not seen JUST literally. Depending on their theological stance, certain groups took their interpretations of the Bible & ran away with them, inventing doctrines and so forth.

In the Middle Ages, allegory began to play a massive part in pretty much everything. As I said before, this didn't mean they didn't think that things like the Adam & Eve story weren't historically true, but that it merely represented one layer of meaning.

People have always, always interpreted things their way - which is how you ended up with Purgatory/Indulgences and so on.

The reformation saw a rejection of this kind of thing on the basis that they weren't actually supported by anything in the Bible. I suspect your point is that it hasn't been taken literally on a "this is a historical record, nothing more" basis - and I would totally agree. But it HAS been taken literally in so far as what it says happened, really did.

You only need to look at what happened with Copernicus, Galileo & even Darwin to see that people took Biblical "history" very seriously.

Ellie off to bed now, hope you got the kitchen done, please pop over ad do mine when finished. It's a mess and DH is doing it under his trade name 'snail inc'.

I no more think that everyone in Britain all through history as Christian than I think everyone in any country follows or really believes the national religion. They had no choice but to be regarded as 'Christian' and that was wrong. But anyway, maybe we will never agree on much! all the best.

ellie - sorry to be slow responding, and it perhaps doesn't matter much.

Allegory is the tip of the iceberg. Honestly, the idea of believing the Bible literally is very modern. It's not a matter of you 'agreeing' with me - if you read the Bible, you will see it contradicts itself. And then if you read almost any theology, you will see it acknowledges that and concludes that a literal interpretation is only going to be of limited use. This is absolutely standard from the early Church through the medieval period onwards. It is really pretty much impossible to claim interpreting the Bible literally was ever a widespread idea, and people these days who claim to do it are more or less lying.

As to access to the Bible - yes, this is true, but Churchmen didn't typically use the Bible as the sole source of doctrine. That's the point. You are using a very modern assumption here, that the Bible would be the natural primary source of all knowledge. It really wasn't.

I'm never sure about a literal hell (not that hell is a hugely big issue in the Bible really). I think some people probably figured out that different accounts were all ways of imagining things. I mean, Dante patently knew he was not being factual! It is very, very difficult to assess what the average person believed, because belief is internal and takes conventional forms of expression when we explain it.

thistle - you said 'Malenky- your view that the correct interpretation of the bible is that homosexuality is perfectly fine, is no more or less valid than someone else's interpretation that the bible says it is an abhorrence.'

Yes - this is exactly the point I was making. That's why I did not follow why you felt my point of view (or anyone else's) that absolute truth exists, should lend 'credence' to an opposing point of view. How could it?

ellie - sorry, I know I'm triple posting, I'm just too thick to manage otherwise.

'Does he? When? Can you provide some verses where he does this. All I'm aware of is him saying that (far from "rubbishing" the OT) he'd come to fulfil it's laws.'

I'm not going to google the verse, but 'this is the new covenant' would be the bit I mean, plus the bits with the pharasees, plus the bits where the New Testament contradicts the old (sending people out from their families to preach and convert instead of focusing on the tribe, not treating dead bodies/menstruating women as pollution, etc.). There are lots of bits.

If you read the Bible, you find that it often contradicts other bits of the Bible, and this is why literal interpretations were a non-starter.

Been away for a while, but just came to this this thread under recommendation!

Immediately I have to pick Italian up in this one: I do believe that the way things are talked about in the Bible are really things that have meaning but did not necessarily happen in the way the Bible describes.

So what's the point in the bible if it isn't accurate? Why should so many people put their faith in its text if it doesn't truly describe what happened and how can one possibly know which bits to take seriously?

Like everything else in life Pedro I believe you have to use some judgement or discernment.

Am liking where you're coming from Malenky, I think we have some thoughts in common, regarding a liberal interpretation of the Bible - including that being the normal way to interpret it throughout most of the church's history, and due to inconsistency, as well as story and allegory, the only sensible approach.

Also like Italian's point as quoted by Pedro above ...
"I do believe that the way things are talked about in the Bible are really things that have meaning but did not necessarily happen in the way the Bible describes"

I do believe that the bible is accurate.
I try to follow it
I believe it.
I try not to water it down
I do believe in hell
I do believe in the 7 days of creation