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

I couldnt make out from your next to last post,MRD, whether you believe the bible literally, or not. Only, am I right in thinking that you are bisexual.

I assume the Bible to be true (it cannot possibly be literally true), but I don't think anyone human is able to understand all of it completely.

I don't habitually use my sexuality to interpret the Bible but it's an interesting idea.

What is the difference to you in the words "true" and "literally true".

Well, that gets to the heart of what we were saying before, I suppose.

A text could be literally nonsense, or literally make sense but be fanciful, eg., by talking about unicorns or something we know doesn't exist. But it could be 'true' on another level, for example if the unicorn represents something else.

This is what I was trying to explain to ellie when she was asking how the bit with the apple and original sin works - the apple in Genesis is (in my view) a component in a story. I don't believe there was a real apple!

Where it gets complicated for me is the next bit. Lots of people would accept that the apple isn't 'literally true', but would say: ah, but it communicates a real truth about humanity, that we are all sinful and women especially so.

I don't think that is it either. I am quite happy to look at that story as the product of a misogynistic culture, and a culture that didn't have a better sense of how to explain evil. So, I think the level of that story being about a woman being tempted and tempting her husband, is also not the full truth. I think what's fundamentally true about it, however, is that we do constantly try to understand how evil happens, and we do feel estranged from God, and we do search inside ourselves and try to motivate ourselves to struggle on, even when our illusions that it's all going to be lovely have been shattered.

That to be is the truth of that particular story.

There are bits of the Bible where I don't feel I know what the ultimate truth being communicated is, and bits where I think the ultimate truth is a whole lot simpler than that one, but I hope it's a good example to use.

So you dont believe all the miracles?
Or things like the sea being parted?

I don't think you followed my post.

You seem to think 'belief' can only mean 'accepting the literal sense of a text'. To me, it doesn't.

Yes, I think I said about my belief further up thread.
I realise that some others, like yourself dont.
So you try to interpret it.
That is not the way for me.
I try to obey it.
Far easier to try and obey that way

Gosh, I don't think it'd be easier! But yes, people do it differently.

I'd fall at the first bit that contradicts itself.

Interesting thread. I haven't read all of it, but it made me think... People who pray for a sick person to be healed - why on earth would god decide to let that person be healed or die on the basis of whether people had prayed for them or not? ('Oh, Mrs Bloggs has prayed for little Peter, so I think I'll let him live. But Bob down the road can die - nobody's prayed for him!')
Whereas if god does not respond to this type of prayer in this way, what is the point of asking him for things? Someone said upthread that of course they 'hoped' intercessory prayers would 'work'. My Peter and Bob example sounds crass and ridiculous, but surely if you are hoping for god to grant this kind of prayer, and thinking that your prayers can 'work', then that kind of 'Peter/Bob scenario is unavoidably part of the process?

Malenky - you give a very good explanation of how you see the mixture of truth and parable in the bible. But what I don't get is - given that you admit that it's hard to tell what is supposed to be truth from what is essentially fiction- why anyone actually would trust that ANY of it is really literally true.

Do you mean, why would anyone (eg., someone in the past), or why would I?

I'd trust some of it is literally true because some of it you can just judge. Eg., yep, I think it's true it's wrong to kill. That's hardly unique to the Bible.

Other bits I trust are true, but couldn't justify it. I believe Christ died and was risen, but I couldn't justify it.

As to why anyone would believe bits of it are true - some bits sound to be about things that, historically, happened. Like the census.

Other things it wouldn't have been unreasonable for people to believe were true, going off what they knew then: eg., a flood could seem fairly reasonable as an explanation for why you find shell fossils inland, if you don't know another explanation. This doesn't mean people were incapable of subtle thought, or that if they believed one bit was true they believed all of it was literally true, it's just that people can sometimes develop what seems to be a good theory and find it's wrong.

Yes, but I suppose what I mean is why would one adopt the whole shebang as one's chosen religion if only some of it makes sense (e.g. the 'don't kill people' bit - which, let's face it, is hardly exclusive to Christianity) given that some of the least believably factual bits are some of the most important central tenets of the faith - e.g. Jesus actually being the son of god, the virgin birth, the resurrection. Surely those bits aren't meant to be just parables?

I don't think it is a 'whole shebang'. I think that's Biblical literalist, which, as I said, I think is a kinda bizarre modern interpretation TBH.

'Whole shebang' implies it's all part of a package, and you were always intended to take on all of it. That's not how it works, IMO.

I mean, would you take on everything (for example) that your parents taught you as a child? Or that your state feels is right? Or even that the wisest person you know thinks? I would imagine that, even if you did, you'd be aware you were interpreting things in your own personal way. That's what humans do.

(Btw, sorry, when I said 'hardly unique to the Bible, what I was getting at was what you said, that this is encoded in pretty much every religion I know of, and in secular societies ... I guess I mean it's the sort of thing I expect that we all agree on, so it's not difficult to believe it's true.)

I see what you mean... I guess when someone says they are, for example, a Christian, I assume that means they have a certain set of beliefs (allowing for a bit of variation between different branches of Christianity) which mean that they consider themselves to fit into the description of Christian. That's what I meant by the whole shebang, rather than that every single word of the bible was considered to be literal truth.
I always have a bit of trouble with the idea of religions being a kind of 'pick what you like' buffet of beliefs. To me it seems to negate much of the point of belonging to a faith in the first place, as well as diminishing the credibility of that religion.

Yes, I have a problem with the 'pick what you like' thing too.

I thought you were asking about the Bible, rather than that.

I'd go by the Creed, which is the normal statement of beliefs for C of E Christians.

But I presume the creed is just the beginning of your faith?
That there is much more to it than that?
Or perhaps you havent been a Christian for very long?

It's not my experience faith becomes more lengthy in its tenets the longer you leave it - IME people start out complicated and pare down to simple.

But 28 years, anyway.

Malenjy, you are older than I realised
I thought you were only about 28!

Noooooo. Cant agree with that at all.
All the Christians I know, without exception, learn more, the older they get.

That was the point.

I agree Christians learn more. I think everyone does.

But in my experience, faith is very simple. Tenets of faith and statements of faith might be very complicated, and theology can be very complicated. But faith itself isn't an intellectual challenge, nor is it something you can sit down and learn, and then say 'yes, great, now I have a degree in 'faith' so I'm a better Christian than you'.

Have you come across the concept of the 'Holy Fool' or 'Fool for Christ'? The Orthodox Church is particularly good on this, IME. Also on kenosis. I find these useful ways to think about whether or not faith is complicated or simple.

I agree that faith isnt remotely complicated.
People with special needs often have a great deal of faith.

Not entirely what I was getting at!

In all fairness I don't think people always practise 'pick what you like' they may feel drawn to 'pick what you feel is right.'

True.

I did not pray for Mandela, but when I pray I do it because it makes me feel better and when I pray for other people I usually don't tell them. But you do not ask for people getting better like other posters said, I usually thank God for the good things in my life and ask for strength for the other things that are not so good.