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

Italiangreyhound thanks for the link - didn't have time to get back before. I agree of course that many individual christians are anti slavery - including yourself. I just think that the idea that the church went all out to end it is unsupported and of course Christianity was used to excuse it too.

Oh and I'm glad you kept your sense of humor after yesterday's CATastrophe.

You quoted me saying that "The power of religion is in the millions of respectable and kind people who support it" and you said "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?"

But I did join! My family were not very religious, but I was told by the people around me about Jesus being born in a manger, that God made the world in 7 days, about Noah's Ark and so on. I was told that being Christian made you a good person and the kindly aunts, uncles and such made this seem self evidently true. I had no reason to question it at the time as children assume adults are honest. I accepted all those as being literally true btw for the benefit of those saying no one ever did.

I think the main reason my sister and I were sent to Sunday School was to get us out of the house, but my parents wouldn't have done that if the church had consisted of fundamentalists. Nor would most schools do nativity plays and invite priests to talk if they were all like Abu Qutada, It was an elderly woman (neighbour) who suggested we go to Sunday School. You couldn't have picked a better advert for the church.

If I hadn't read the bible I'd be a christian now and by my example recruiting others - to be misled and used by those not so kindly christians.

zulu. I tend to pray three set times a time, because that is what Daniel did!
And anytime in between ad hoc.
Rarely pray with others.

On the subject of taking the bible literally if you assume it's not written by god what information do you have about what god wants/expects and what he is like?

The only other source of information you have would be the feelings you get in your head and you know those are unreliable because other people get feelings too. Their feelings often tell them that your ideas about god are nonsense and that only their way is right. They sincerely believe god is putting those ideas in their head just as you do.

Without a starting place how do you know that god doesn't want you all to collect stamps to earn a place in heaven and why would you even think that heaven exists or that god wants anything from you? If the bible isn't your instruction manual then you just don't have one and everything you say is purely a guess - like picking random scrabble pieces and making a message out of them.

zulu - thanks for replying. Sorry, it occurred to me after I maybe should have started my own thread, but I'm a bit of a newbie in this section.

Personally, I often use the lord's prayer - I find it comes into my mouth when I'm really scared! - but I also use others, mostly simple ones ('Lord Jesus Christ, son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner'). Rather pretentiously, I know the miserere in Latin, and I have occasionally tried to say that as an experiment. I do think it makes a difference to focus on a language you don't wholly understand. And increasingly, the language of the Book of Common Prayer is beginning to be sufficiently distant from our own that it has that formality.

I pray alone except during services, but when my MIL is here we pray together - no-one prays as much as an Orthodox mother! - and sometimes my husband and I will say 'god bless you' to each other. But that's as much as it gets.

back - no, there's Holy Tradition (or whatever the denomination in question calls it). You're perhaps thinking of literate societies, yes? But a lot of people in Christian history have valued tradition (even when it was written down and codified, eg. in papal decrees), because they were not so reliant on books as we are in the modern day.

Re. 'scrabble pieces' - I don't know much about this, but I believe there is a Jewish practice where you combine texts from the Torah almost in that way.

Do you think it's necessarily a problem that feelings are unreliable?

Back you said ...Italiangreyhound thanks for the link - didn't have time to get back before. I agree of course that many individual christians are anti slavery - including yourself. I just think that the idea that the church went all out to end it is unsupported and of course Christianity was used to excuse it too.

I never said the church went all out to end it. Slavery is a very shameful part of the church's checkered past. Individual people, who are all themselves a part of the church (of course) did play a part, along with (I am sure) non-Christians or those of other faiths.

Back I am sorry your experience of church was negative. You said If I hadn't read the bible I'd be a christian now and by my example recruiting others - to be misled and used by those not so kindly christians. so you are talking about people 'used' by the church in some way, what do you mean? Did you simply decide it was not true? Can really say you were a member by choice if you made the choice to leave a.s.a.p? Anyway, I am sorry you feel so negative about church.

Back you said... The only other source of information you have would be the feelings you get in your head and you know those are unreliable because other people get feelings too. Their feelings often tell them that your ideas about god are nonsense and that only their way is right. They sincerely believe god is putting those ideas in their head just as you do. Isn't important to distinguish between feelings? I mean I might feel that I am being told to do something evil, or I might feel I love someone, they are both feelings. The Bible says you will be known by your fruits, and I think that is true.

I do not believe the Bible is an instruction manual, although I have often heard it reffered to as such. I think it is the story of people trying to reach God and of God reaching out to people. Without it I am sure God could communicate with people, but fortunately he does not need to as we have it!

However, we do also interprit to some degree in the light of church history and of course it was the early church who decided which books would go in it, so of course we must think the church as a body of Christians has some value (I mean those of us who are Christians must think that).

Sorry Back Isn'tIt important to distinguish between feelings?

My experience of church wasn't negative in itself. I was a child so I liked the hymns etc. It was just that I liked reading too. So when I was given a bible I read all of it and not just the selected passages most people find sufficient.

I didn't just read it and say "I don't like it". I read the whole thing, thought about it, got a notebook and read it through again making notes and highlighting passages. Then I read it through again with different color highlighters. Then I started reading selected passages and comparing. (ok so I probably wasn't a lot of fun as a child :), but I could work at something that interested me)

It was like walking behind the scenes on a movie set. Clearly invented, not even close to being internally consistent and where was the loving god I'd been told about? The 'god' depicted in the bible I had in my hand was some kind of a psychopath. Or at least he would be if he existed, but there was no reason in this hodgepodge of stories to imagine that he did.

It took a lot longer than that sounds, but I learned that A) god didn't exist (or rather there was no evidence that he did) and B) it is socially acceptable to lie to children to recruit them into your church.

My opposition to religion (all of them) is a combination of factors.

The abuse (physical, sexual and psychological) inflicted on children and vulnerable adults. The violence that religion often causes and the constant battle to retain my freedom when religious groups try to impose their rules on my life.

The physical and/or sexual abuse is enabled by the blind trust and exemption from scrutiny in people 'appointed by god', even where it is not itself a part of the religion. And like it or not genital mutilation for girls and boys is a part of religion. Not to mention torture to drive out devils.

The root problem though is 'faith'. The idea that what comes into your head is put there by god and should not be questioned. That logic and rational examination should take a back seat to obeying either what you imagine god wants, or what someone else tells you god wants.

Many religious people do examine those 'feelings' and reject them - especially in this country. They won't kill or abuse people for their god because they know better. However they will still encourage others in this blind faith and even teach it in schools. They will teach the 'inspiring' story of Abraham's willingness to murder his son to show his faith in god and see nothing wrong in that.

Faith is dangerous and makes no sense. The faith of Muslims and Jews tells them that your Jesus was not god. That alone should blow faith out of the water.

No, I'm sorry. I'm sure you believe you know the truth here, but I am afraid you are wrong. In 1300, you're looking (roughly) at things like Cursor Mundi, maybe some wall paintings, that sort of thing. The very best it would be, would be a very loose, non-literal paraphrase

What a load of absolute nonsense.

Have you read the Cursor Mundi? I suggest you do - then come back and tell me that you don't think people were taking events in the Bible literally.

Hint: The Cursor Mundi is probably the worst example you could pick to support your claim

And no - it wasn't just down to poems and wall art! Blimey. Mystery plays, for a start? Ever heard of them? They were a pretty big deal for the ordinary man.

Also, do a bit of research on how magic was Christianized, the role of religious relics, the idea of angels, demons, miracles, spirits, witches. Find out about the way dreadful diseases like plague were justified or understood (hint: it has something to do with Noah).

Regarding allegory - yes, I know what it means. I suspect that YOU don't know it's purpose. I suspect that YOU don't know how Medieval people did not regard themselves as occupying a different time (which is why everyone was in Medieval dress in art, no matter how ancient the subject) and so used allegory to bring everything into a nice, neat continuous narrative. But just because they did this DOES NOT MEAN they weren't also taking parts of it very literally indeed. They just weren't ONLY taking it literally.

Incidentally, it is quite common in medieval literature to interpret things like Moses' tablets according to their numerological significance

YES. But why can't you understand that this does not mean that they didn't think that Moses really existed and really did bring the tablets down the mountain? They merely sought to show that this event could be shown as significant to them too in a variety of ways. They didn't regard "history" in the same light as us, they didn't understand it the way we do, they didn't have our tools or methodology so they used what they did have.

I might add that Jesus himself referenced Adam, Noah and Moses. I suppose he didn't take any of that literally, either?

You seem to be saying 'Christians always interpret the Bible literally! How dare you interpret the Bible non-literally!' I'm sorry, but why on earth does it matter to you?

Why it "matters to me" is my business, thanks.

And I should think any idiot would realise what I was talking about. You seem to be saying (actually ARE saying) that no one ever took ANY of the Bible literally, until the reformation! A ludicrous thing to say - and an indication that perhaps you're not sure what the reformation was actually all about and what it was seeking to get rid of.

Throughout history, Christians have believed nonsense (and not much has changed) - deal with it.

Oh - and I will reiterate your amazing statement that Jesus spent a huge chunk of time in the NT "rubbishing" the OT. Presumably you haven't read the NT? There is ONE verse where he appears, in a very gentle way, to contradict one of it's laws - in another he actively condones it. The rest of the time, he's quoting from it.

Quite how this translates into "a large chunk of time is spent rubbishing it" is beyond me.

I should not be here, really - but will read any response you might have when I have time. But I might STRONGLY suggest that you do some actual bloody research before you start telling people that they don't know what they are talking about.

The Cursor Mundi

ellie, I've read the Cursor Mundi.

Your knowledge of medieval England isn't very good. You are getting confused about what allegory is (which is quite clear from your posts). You seem to feel you don't need to produce any evidence for your statements, so it's not terribly convincing, is it?

I suggest you go and follow up my suggestions. Read up properly on this subject.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Btw, I never said 'no-one ever took any of the Bible literally until the reformation'.

Re-read my posts calmly, instead of wittering on about how you've misunderstood medieval literature, and you will see that.

I'm sorry, I know I am getting rude now, but your tone throughout this thread has been to keep repeating 'you're wrong ... you're wrong ... you're wrong' to everyone, without the slightest proof, and advancing very contradictory and confused ideas about what is in the Bible and how it has been read.

It really annoys me, actually, that you can't even be bothered to read my posts before you start making up things I never said. I suggested several types of text, visual and verbal, that people would have known. And you jump in to say 'no, it wasn't just those'. Well, no shit. Yes, of course there were many other things too, but I have given several examples, not suggested they were all there was.

I seriously think that you may be incapable of understanding this debate simply because you are not able to follow a complex sentence.

I will try to put if very simply:

Ellie says 'Christians take the Bible literally! That's what they always did'. Then Ellie says 'Christians believe nonsense! They don't read the Bible literally! How dare they?'

Everyone else with a brain says: 'hmm, maybe, just maybe, this is what we call a non-literal reading'.

Good lord.

I agree with Ellie, but don't claim her level of understanding of Medieval thought.

The whole movement of Natural Theology is premised on the bible being the truth about god, from which humans must try to understand his nature. St Augustine, who is one of the most influential Natural Theologians is famously quoted for saying that if men cannot understand the truth of god from the bible, it is the fault of reasoning of man, and is not due to any ambiguity or multiplicity of interpretation in the bible.

This contrasts distinctly with theological philosophies based on revelation, which say that a relationship with god helps man understand the bible.

But medieval ideas of 'truth' are not modern ones. The idea that 'truth' is to be identified with 'fact' or 'literal sense' is not medieval at all.

I have taught undergraduates who struggle with this, even very good ones. I knew people during my master's who did. I am not blaming ellie for that. What I struggle with is that she is insistent that merely stating 'you're wrong' and bringing out inaccurate and confused arguments is enough. It isn't, and it's unnecessary.

I have already made the point you make, that the truth of the Bible may well not be something men are capable of understanding (though I prefer my West Wing quotation to Augustine). But it is also in the Bible itself: 'we see through a glass darkly'. This quotation could mean - literally - that we're looking at a cloudy mirror. That's one sense. But there is a huge weight of tradition that interprets it as a way of thinking about truth. That weight of tradition is really important.

If you insist on looking at Biblical interpretation anachronistically, and assuming medieval people (or people at any time other than our own) thought the same way we did, you will end up struggling.

I think this is really problematic, btw, because if you take this anachronistic attitude - ie., you pick up an idea from a theologian, but you don't properly translate all the terms he's using so you assume he means the same thing by 'truth' that you do - you will get confused.

Ellie is talking a lot about how some Christian interpretations of the Bible are 'nonsense', and she has failed to realize that when I referred to several passages of the NT (not just one!), she needs to go and look at these instead of believing incorrectly that they are 'myths'. I do not really see how an interpretation of the Bible that's regularly advanced by Christians can be a 'myth'. That's not what 'myth' means.

I think she is trying, in her way, to suggest that she doesn't like these interpretations of the Bible, so confusedly feels it must be possible to say they are categorically wrong. And I am explaining to her that this isn't really how it works, and it makes her own argument about literally interpretation internally inconsistent.

That may be so, and I don't know enough about the era to challenge what you say, but the overriding philosophy from Natural Theology is 'the bible is not open to differences of interpretation'. That if differences arose, it was due to a deficiency of understanding, not due to the individual's relationship with god. It is the lack of room for quibbling, or for personal understanding that equates to our modern notion of 'truth'.

Well, it's a hugely long era, so it is complex and that's fair enough.

But yes, I've said this upthread.

But you could also see it in the Divine Comedy - it's rather like a blinding light, that erases all personal differences. But we're not equipped to see that light, it blinds us.

It's ultimately related to the idea of Platonic ideals - there is an ideal form, but the forms we come across in life are shadowy reflections of that ideal.

I think it's a mistake to imagine this relates to literal understanding. The modern idea that the Bible is literally true is a different kind of thing. For medieval interpreters, it wasn't possible for any human to grasp the literal truth of the Bible in any consistent way, but all sorts of supplementary teachings could modify how people understood the Bible. Therefore the Bible wasn't the be-all and end-all of religious texts, which it is for modern Biblical literalists.

It's really important to understand these traditions, because they explain why people always used their own moral and ideological standards to interpret what readings of the Bible they took on board and which they dismissed.

Btw, I think purgatory might be the helpful example here. It's not a Biblical doctrine (unless you want to play with some very oblique ideas), but to medieval people, that didn't matter. It was a doctrine the Church had worked out for itself. To us, yes, it seems horribly controlling and restrictive - and upsetting. But to them, it was a way of making sense of death in a world where death was deeply unpredictable.

"For medieval interpreters, it wasn't possible for any human to grasp the literal truth of the Bible in any consistent way, but all sorts of supplementary teachings could modify how people understood the Bible. Therefore the Bible wasn't the be-all and end-all of religious texts, which it is for modern Biblical literalists."

Malenky - I have to disagree with you on this. The whole point of Natural Theology was to determine the nature and truth of god without reference to any sacred texts other than the bible. This idea was wholly distinct from the idea of "revealed theology", which did rely on interpretation, and ideas from other religious and philosophical teachings.

Natural theologians made a distinction between those 'truths' from the bible that they were able to comprehend through their god-given reason, and those 'truths' which were beyond human cognition. Both were accepted as being 'true' and were equally accepted even if they were not understood.

Where I think this discussion came from is the idea that you cannot be a 'proper Christian' if you hold (what we see to be) distasteful views such as homosexuality being abhorrent and a sin. It was suggested that anyone holding these sorts of views clearly did not have a good and personal relationship with god, else they would not hold them.

The contrary argument, which I have been supporting, is that this idea of having a personal relationship with god which allows you to interpret the bible in any way that suits you (or which you think is right) is a Christian philosophy in it's own right and is one that that is not espoused by the whole of Christian teaching. Again, it is a view of Christianity that is no more wrong or right than those who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

There is no higher truth. It is all a matter of, and a justification of one's own beliefs.

But plenty of medieval theologians aren't interested in Natural Theology, are they? I am saying that Augustine et al are not all about the literal sense. And much medieval theology (or indeed early Church theology) is not all about the Bible.

There is far more to the ways in which people have interpreted the Christianity in the past, that this narrow idea of the Bible as the only reference book, whose meaning is literal.

For me, what this discussion of Biblical literalism highlights is that some people get very upset when they see others purporting to be Christian, and interpreting the Bible in a way they think isn't literal. They have a very fixed idea of what is 'nonsense' or a 'myth', and won't accept that perhaps these are merely ways in which some of us Christians are happy to understand our faith.

For me, it's historically and theologically valid to interpret the Bible in a non-literal way, and to bring in other useful ideas from extra-Biblical sources. I fully respect that not everyone wants to do this, but I find it very hard to respect people who insist on labelling non-literal interpretations of the Bible as 'myths'.

I also respect your right to believe there's no higher truth. But I would say - why should it matter that others do believe this? If they are merely justifying their own beliefs, surely, from a purely altruistic point of view, it is better that they do this by reading the Bible in the light of modern morality?

We came into this debate with discussion of slavery and homosexuality being respectively condoned and condemned in the Bible, and there seems to be a feeling that Christians who declare they don't read the Bible in that way are somehow 'cheating'.

If you believe it's all nonsense anyway, why wouldn't you prefer people to 'cheat' and believe something that is socially and morally acceptable?

It is, I am pretty certain, exactly what theologians have done for centuries if not millenia. I really don't think it is possible to make out that medieval people went entirely against their moral instincts every time they were faced with a tricky Biblical verse. No: they simply read the Bible and understood it to be saying what they felt was morally right.

Btw, honestly, there is no way I'm not right about the medieval Catholic Church making reference to tradition as well as the Bible. Seriously, this is really, really, really basic.

I don't disagree that revealed theology existed alongside natural theology. I also do not disagree that even the natural theologists were influenced by other philosophies and doctrines, even if they specifically stated that they were putting aside such ideas to pursue their 'pure' and 'natural' theology. That is kind of my point when I say that there is no higher truth and that it is all a matter of personal interpretation. It is just that by supporting the idea of there being a 'higher truth', you support those people who claim they act solely in accordance with it, rather than admitting that their own philosophy is, just like everyone else, simply a mixture of the cultural and educational experiences they have been exposed to.

I would also pick you up on what you said that "some people get very upset when they see others purporting to be Christian, and interpreting the Bible in a way they think isn't literal": and I would reply that there are as many, if not more people who get very upset when they see Christians interpreting the bible in what they perceive to be a literal way.

It matters to me that people believe there to be a higher truth when those people (or representatives of those people) get to have a say in things that affect the day-to-day lives of people who do not share those beliefs. And that the only reason that they get this say is because they are able to perpetuate the idea of this 'higher truth', rather than taking full ownership of their ideas and beliefs.

It matters, because many of those people and representatives use that power to do things that actively harm other people.

No, I don't support those people - you've no reason to assume I do. I support people I think are right, just the same as anyone else.

I'm aware there are people who get upset when they see Christians interpreting the Bible in what they perceive to be a literal way. As you've probably gathered by now (!), I am one of those people.

I find it wearying when people hide behind anti-religious waffle in order to object to what is plainly indefensible. You surely can construct a decent argument against things that actively harm other people. If you can't, why do you think anti-religious generalizations about a 'higher truth' are going to convince anyone that they're doing something harmful? I can't see any evidence this approach ever helps.

It is much better, IMO, simply to object to what people do, not what you believe they might possibly believe, or what you believe they might not believe but you may as well pretend they do for the sake of bashing religion.

Of course you don't directly support people with such views, but by supporting the idea of there being a higher truth, you support the value system in which such ideas and such people can thrive.

As I said up thread, I see no problem in people believing what they want so long as they accept that their beliefs are personal to them. I do have a problem with people holding that some beliefs are 'better' or 'more correct' than other beliefs because they are founded on a higher truth than mere mortal reasoning. At the moment, (I believe it to be the case that) all Christian denominations hold on to the idea of there being a higher truth, which means that the beliefs of Christians are better than those of non-Christians. So anyone calling the self a Christian is promoting that idea.

No, I don't agree. I see why you're saying it, though, and I do think it's worth thinking about.

I certainly agree that it's really important not to assume some beliefs are 'better' than others. For me, I'd extend that to saying that it's important to acknowledge that belief and scientific understanding are qualitatively different, and it is very dangerous to promote the idea that belief can ever stand in for science.

I don't think you are right that anyone calling themself a Christian promotes the idea that the beliefs of Christians are better than those of non-Christians, though. That would only be tenable if you were the sort of Christian who believes that there is a higher truth to which Christians have more access than non-Christians.

I believe there are many things we don't understand. Prayer helps me feel better about those, but I have no quarrel with someone else feeling it's useless - if it doesn't work for them, fine. It's not some kind of magic thread linking you to 'absolute truth', IMO.

Interesting thread, and I am late to it, but will have a ponder.