This is topic If someone says he's going to pray for you... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021187

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
How in the heck do you tell him to bugger off politely?

I understand that for many people, praying for someone else is a way of trying ot help, expressing concern, etc.
But praying for someone is like anything else: sometimes the person doesn't want the form of help you are offering to give. It seems to me that its considered ok for people to say "No, thank you, I don't want anyone bringing food even though my mother just passed away and its traditional," or, basically, no to any form of activist help.

But if someone offers to pray for you, and respond "please don't," people take extreme offense.

I don't WANT people to pray for me. Its not productive, and, to me, it feels like a way for people to pretend that they care enough to help, without actually doing anything. Its sortof like, if your car breaks down, someone stopping, pulling over, saying "Damn, that sucks," and driving off without asking if you need a lift, or want him to call for a tow-truck.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, the people offering to pray think that its going to do something... although I think th eoverwhelming evidence is against the idea it does any good when we consider the number of unanswered prayers that are offered up every day, and have been for all of human history.

Which brings me back to my question: If you don't have the human decency to ask if I would like a certain form of help, and the help is something I can't actually prevent you from giving, when someone tells me "I'm going to pray for you," how in the heck do I tell that person that this is not a desired form of help, and please don't go through it, without biting their head off?
 
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
 
Do you believe in hell?
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
No.
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
You know, Paul - a very wise person told me once that part of my job as a considerate and kind person was to allow other people the opportunity to help me.

Just a thought. [Smile]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Why must you? Why can't you just smile and nod? Or if you must say something, how about a simple, "I appreciate your concern"?

Do you believe their prayers harm you in some way?
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Why care? Let 'em pray. It certainly won't do any harm, either.

It's like Pascal's Wager, only you don't have to do squat. [Smile]
 
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
If you don't believe that prayer can help you, do you think that prayer can HARM you? I mean...if you don't believe in prayer, why does it matter?

[Dont Know]

Are you seriously upset because people are showing concern for you in the way that THEY feel is most productive? Why should it matter to you? Are you feeling that these people who offer to pray for you are not willing to do any real work to help you with your problem?

I'm kind of grumpy about your post. *grin* Maybe I'll pray about it. [Wink]

I think that you might propose something they can do in addition to the prayers (they're probably going to pray for you anyway, if they're serious about it), for instance (and you can say this nicely, since you ARE asking for help): "It's nice that you want to pray for me at this time of my mother's death, but it would also be helpful if you could assist me with the paperwork."

I'm sorry, but I just don't see the harm in it.

edit: Man! a lot of people said similar things while I was typing this! I agree with rivka and the others who agreed with me before they even knew they were agreeing with me. *grin*

[ January 29, 2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: jexx ]
 
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
 
Let's put it this way, you belive in God all your life and you die, no heaven, no everlasting life, all that was wasted was an hour every Sunday and maybe some good deeds sprinkled here and there. But lets see the flip side, there is a God, well, you're gonna have whole lot of time to think about your mistake...
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
That's it, Paul. NO MORE PRAYERS FOR YOU!
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Janger:
Bugger off.
I'm perfectly aware of pascals wager, and unlike other people on this thread, you're just trolling.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I see a lot of similarities between this and the thread a few months ago (half a year ago?) on mormons baptizing the dead (relatives). There was a great deal of offense at that notion, but some people couldn't see where the offense lay.

I think Paul makes an interesting point. There are perfectly tactful ways of declining gifts and help. Why no tactful ways of declining prayer? Are you so offended that someone would decline your "gift" that you would never want someone to try to decline it?
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I like that jexx, rivka, and I each used different ways to emphasize "harm" in three simultaneous posts.
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I just recall that I would be really embarrassed or ashamed when people would try to help me out - with whatever. I didn't know how to say "thanks - I appreciate the offer - here's what would be really helpful, if you're so inclined."

And the person that talked to me about this really impressed on me the importance of allowing other people to give to those in need.

If prayer is not what is needed, how about telling the concerned person what is?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Frisco, good point. [ROFL]
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
hmm . . . I'm trying, but I can't seem to find any sympathy.

[Dont Know]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the harm in it.
Hey neither do I, but you know what, Paul does. When did we get to decide what another person should want done for them. Paul specifically doesn't want people to pray for him. What I've read so far is that he's wrong, so people should pray for him anyway.

Let's say you just had something bad happen and someone said, "I'll ritually sacrifice a chicken for you. That will help you out." Would you be thinking the same thing?

Janger,
Let me present a slightly different scenario than the oft-destructed Pascal's Wager. You live your entire life as a Christian only because of the terms of the Wager (i.e. you want to get into Heaven and avoid Hell, if they exist). You die and come before God, who promptly sends you to Hell because you were never at any point in your life a sincere Christian. Furthermore, he lets your athiest friend in to Heaven because he acted in sincere accordance with his experience for his entire life. Frankly, I'm a lot happier with that kind of God than the childish one you're describing.

To butcher Sartre, "Hell is when you're other people."

[ January 29, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
If someone is substituting prayer for some more tangible help they could give you, I can see why you might be somewhat upset.

But sometimes people offer to pray for you because they are at a loss as to what else they can do, and that seems to me to be a kind gesture at the least. For instance, if you told me about some problem you had while we were online, there's relatively little I can do to help you from out here, unless it was a situation where I could notify authorities where you are and you couldn't, or something like that. It'd be, at the least, a way of saying "I care and wish I could do more."
 
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
 
touche
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
yes, it does harm me.

Its an attempt to help me in a way that I don't want help. Its no different then my tow-truck example. Its just OBNOXIOUS. Its no less obnoxious then when people try to help in other ways, and you don't wnat it.

Does it HARM you if someone brings a casserole? no. It doesn't. It actually provides some material benefit. But if you don't want food assisstance, its annoying and hits a sore spot.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
Let's say you just had something bad happen and someone said, "I'll ritually sacrifice a chicken for you. That will help you out." Would you be thinking the same thing?
Probably, but I'd ask him to sacrifice me some stuffing, too. And maybe some peas.
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
That's okay, I'll give you a cheeseburger.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
No thanks, I think I'll pass on the cheeseburger.
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
So, I repeat - can you ask them for what you need? you know, something along the lines of:

"Thanks for the thought, but what I could really use is . . . "

I don't think that's wrong.

I do think it's polite.

Just my opinion.
 
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
There are two motivations I can see for someone to say "I'll pray for you."

1. They mean it as a form of comfort. Since they believe that having people pray for an individual will help that individual to cope with their problems, they believe that when you hear those words, they will give you added hope and strength. These people expect that even if you don't believe in the same efficacy of prayer that they do, you will at worst take their words to mean, "I'll be thinking about you," which for most people IS comforting.

2. They use that phrase as a means to make themselves look holy and spiritual. They say it to you, not so that you will feel better, but so that they will look superior to you. The more areligious you are, the more they gain from it.

Given these two motives, I can't really think of a good reason to tell them to bugger off. If they're sincere, then all they're doing is trying to comfort you, and snapping at them will only make you look like a jerk. And if they really are just being self-righteous, then reacting badly will only fuel their indignation. So just smile and nod, and then it will be over.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Well, yes, sometimes you can say "I'd appreciate it if instead"

That seems to me to be a reasonable solution to the problem.
 
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
I don't know what to say to you Paul.

[Dont Know]

I think you are being irrational, but I am a person who believes in prayer, so...

[Dont Know]

edit: oh sure, paul, answer while I am answering. I think I have the slowest fingers on Hatrack!!
*sigh*

[ January 29, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: jexx ]
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I see where you're coming from, Paul. It's almost like they're laying a burden on you. Too many people do favors, not for true altruism, but because they intend on the favor being returned.

I say, let them pray...and when they come to you asking for help, offer to help them harness their "chi" or through telekinesis. Maybe offer to Feng Shui their kitchen cabinets.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Of course I'm being irrational.

I don't like getting a lot of forms of help, because of the nature of who I am. However, when I tell people that i don't want them to do X for me, its generally taken reasonable... unless X is prayer. THen people tell me that I should just accept prayer because they mean it nicely. WHy should I accept it? I don't WANT it, it doesn't HELP me, and if its done for YOUR benefit, which it must be because you don't care about how it effects me, then it seems perfectly legitimate to tell someone to stop getting high on themselves over my problems.
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Can you do that, Frisco?

Dang, my kitchen cabinets need a little help! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I get that people are offering to pray think that it's going to help. The thing is, Paul doesn't think so. Would it be alright if he answered, "No thanks, that's not going to help." to offers to pray for him? If someone offers to make you some food, it's ok to refuse it because you don't need it. Do people think that you'd get the same reaction refusing a prayer as you would food?
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
Can you do that, Frisco?
Depends. Are you going to sacrifice a chicken and stuffing for me?
 
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
If someone says they're praying for you, in most cases you can take it as a compliment, if it seems to be meant sincerely as wishing well for you. Some people might take it as an expression of spiritual arrogance or presumption that they're spiritually superior, but you don't know that for sure, you're just acting on the basis of suspicion. In fact, that is presuming to judge them, which is also spiritually arrogant and presumptuous even on the part of an atheist. Since they are not outright insulting you, why get upset?

Of course, if someone says to you, "I'm going to pray for you because Heaven knows a reprobate like you really needs it," then I can see where you might take umbrage. Unless it's your best friend teasing you.
 
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
 
*prepares for backlash*

quote:
yes, it does harm me.
In my opinion, Paul, it harms you because you allow it to. Here is my not quite the same analogy.

When I was younger and had a much lower opinion of myself, I would react with sarcasm when someone paid me a compliment. (Them: You look nice today. Me: Yeah, right.) Finally someone pointed out to me that I was perpetuating my low self-image as well as making those people feel bad about paying me a compliment. She suggested that I just say "Thank you" and be done with it even if I disagreed.

I don't want to take sides. I'm just trying to offer up another perspective. Personally, I would rather have someone say they'll pray for me and smile and nod than have them tell me I need to pray about the situation myself.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Good point.

Just reply: "Well, that makes one of us."
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Funny you should ask, Frisco - I just went grocery shopping this evening and I happen to have an organically grown/fed chicken just waiting to be stuffed.

When would you like to start on the kitchen?
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Well, I do need an excuse to go see Ralphie...
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
See, the thing is, you can turn down somebody who offers to bring you food because, in addition to being helpful, it also inconveniences you. You have to put on clothes instead of moping around in your underwear, get the five day old dishes off the counter, etc. So the message you are sending is "thank you, but the convenience of having you bring food is not worth the hardship it would entail at this time," which is a fair response. (Although certainly not in so many words. But when somebody turns down my offer of help, I understand that what he needs is space or time or whatever.)

But somebody praying for you, while it may or may not work, does not inconvenience you in any way. When you say, "I don't want you to because it doesn't work anyway," that's more like saying "Please don't bring food. I've had your cooking and it sucks eggs." A much less gracious turn-down, in my opinion.
 
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
Paul, I don't have a problem with people responding to offers a prayer with "No thank you, it's not something I believe in." That's why I usually offer my 'warm thoughts' to someone who is having a hard time, unless I know they appreciate prayer. I just don't understand it. [Smile] Also: being annoyed by it doesn't make sense to me. And in addition: your original post seemed confrontational about it and it made me grumpy.

[Smile]

But I'm over it.
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
It's always so nice to know how one rates in this world . . . [Razz]
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
If you told me to not pray because you didn't believe in it anyway, all you will have done is caused me to pray for you even more. [Smile]
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be confrontational.

its something that has pissed me off for a while, and i'm getting to t he point where I DO want to say "bugger off" when people say they will pray for me. When people ASK if its ok, thats great! I still don't want the prayer, but at least they recognize that its maybe not something that is appreciated.
But most of the time, people get upset if you don't appreciate teh prayer. Fine, I can understand that... but if thats the case, why is it not ok for ME to be upset when you offer?

I know my dislike is irrational, but that doesn't change the point that I don't want people to pray for me. Its also irrational that I don't like about 800000 other forms of help. But with those, people are fine with the help being rejected.

Anyrate, I was honestly trying to ask how to do this politely and wasn't trying to be offensive about it.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Belle-
And can you understand how that sort of reaction might make someone want to hit you? Especially if you TELL them?

Edit: sigh. This is gonna be taken much worse then I mean. *mutter*

[ January 29, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
 
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
LOL, Paul, I was just going to say "THAT was confrontational!"

*grin*

It would irritate me if I asked not to be prayed for, and someone told me to my face that they were going to do it anyway, yes. But Belle is very polite and wouldn't tell you that to your face unless she knew you very well (I think). And I would never punch Belle. She is very strong! She's a mom, you know! Moms are scarystrong!

[Angst]
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I wouldn't punch belle, either.
But I might WANT to if she said that to me.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Paul, perhaps you could explain that you worship a jealous god who will flay you alive if another god lays even a finger on you, but that if the well-wisher REALLY wants to help, they can convert to your church and round up some chickens. [Smile]
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
LOL I like that one [Smile]
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
If someone insists on praying for you, and tells you as much, then you should let them know that you plan on increasing your rate of sinning to make up for it.
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
[ROFL]
 
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
TomD--Don't forget about the stuffing!

Paul--Okay, I think I understand. [Smile] No real punching, though! It's bad for your knuckles! [Wink]

edited to add:

Frisco--Fabulous! [ROFL]

[ January 29, 2004, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: jexx ]
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
*wonders how many chickens she'll have to cook in order to get her kitchen cabinets organized nicely*
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
No, I wouldn't say it to your face. I'd smile and say "okay" but I'd be on my knees praying to God on your behalf that night.

And I know you won't understand this Paul, so it's probably pointless to explain, but I feel like it's something I HAVE to do. I think it's part of my role as a Christian, and something that God wants me to do. Sometimes I pray for people that don't want me to and sometimes I pray for people I don't want to pray for or even like.

Why do it? Well, obedience I suppose. Though I realize my obedience to a Creator you don't believe in means nothing to you. That is why, though I wouldn't stop praying for you if you asked me to.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
No, I do actually understand it...
I mean, i recognize that you're supposed to try to "save" people and that can be partially accomplished through prayer, according to christian theology.

I still don't LIKE it, and I hope that turnabout happens someday, just so you can all feel how annoying it is... but I do understand [Smile]
 
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
 
Each person's beliefs are their own, and should be (to a degree) respected. What i mean by "to a degree" is that a cultist who wants to use my liver to worship kinda impedes me. I need my liver, darnit. Especially with my 21st right around the corner. [Razz]

Religion has always been a sensitive issue. By saying "dont pray for me" it may pass the thought that maybe you're against their beliefs. People do crazy things to protect their beliefs. Jihad, crusades, crucifixion.

My point is, its not like they're asking you to pray with them, so they aren't really placing on you the burden of someone else's religion.

I dunno. I guess there's times when you have to smile and keep your mouth shut, if you want to be a part of "normal society".
Or you could fix your problem by reclusing, and not talking to anyone. Then you wouldn't have to hear people talk about praying for you, but it doesn't do much for yourself.

Bluntly, i say just deal with it.


[edit: this post is quite out of time. Pretend it was posted, ohh, 5-7 posts previous. then it might make sense. probly not [Razz] ]
Crazy as always,
Psychotriad.

[ January 29, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Psycho Triad ]
 
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
quote:
And I know you won't understand this Paul, so it's probably pointless to explain, but I feel like it's something I HAVE to do. I think it's part of my role as a Christian, and something that God wants me to do. Sometimes I pray for people that don't want me to and sometimes I pray for people I don't want to pray for or even like.
Adrian, you poor soul. While I'm sure you won't understand, I must pray to Satan for the recovery of your soul. I know you probably don't want me to, and we may not even like each other, but it's part of my role as a Satanist to pray for lost and uncomprehending souls like yourself. Someday Satan will save your soul, even if you can't understand why during your life.

Now, I do dig Adrian and all, but maybe that attitude can come off as a wee bit self-righteous? Possibly obnoxious? Bordering on the amusingly self-absorbed?
 
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
 
So Belle, not only are you disrespecting someone else's religious beliefs, you are willing to lie and be two faced about it, too? That's rather pathetic.

I feel the need to tell you that at my next satanci cult meeting, I'll be "praying" for your soul. After all, you are obviously on the wrong path in life and need Satan's help in making better life choices. And any protestation will only cause the cult to be even more vigorous in our "prayer." We might even have to take it up to the next level and start tracting in your neighborhood. Conversion to my religion would be good for you.

(Joking of course, as I'm not a Satanic cultist, nor particularly care one way or another about what happens to Belle or her soul. But I find it amazing how arrogant Christians are. Who do you think you are? Aren't the Jews the "Chosen People." Even your Bible admits that. So who are to tell a Jew you are going to pray for him? Talk about hubris. He should probably be praying for you to turn your back on your false religion. Just because you all were duped into believing Jesus was the Son of God, it doesn't make it true.)
 
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
 
Damn Lalo! [Razz]
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
don't be an ass, jack. That was baiting.
 
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
 
Ahh, yes, and I can see how when Belle said that when someone says no, it means she interprets that to mean to do it anyway wasn't baiting. It's not like rape or anything. Paul says no, Belle does it anyway. Yet, I'm the bad guy.

[ January 29, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
weeellll - if someone would clue e in as to how many chickens to baste . . .
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Um, yeah. It's exactly like rape. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
 
jeesh now that i go back and re-read this thread, i almost want to delete my post and have nothing to do with it.

You people snip and snipe at eachother so damn much. A serious argument begins, and watchs as dozens of trolls roll out of their piles of feces to bludgeon others with rude comments.

Sometimes people make me sick.
 
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
 
Maybe you should pray for us.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Well, Jack, I think you need to re read my post. I said I'd smile and say Okay. I didn't say I'd smile and say "Okay, I won't pray for you." In this case, I consider my "Okay" to mean "Okay, I acknowledge that you've made this request, I won't bother you further with it"

You can pray to Satan all you want to about me, he can't answer those prayers so no big. [Smile]
 
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I just want my kitchen cabinets made nice and promised to sacrifice a chicken.

What's the problem?

I didn't say anyone had to or could not pray.

I just want to know who's hungry!
 
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
 
can anyone say spiteful jack-ass?

damn and i told myself i wasn't gonna respond to his mindless drivel.
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Not the bad guy, just a jackass.
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Nicely handled, Belle.

[Hat]
 
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Gah. Jack, don't troll -- you and I have the same point, but if you'll notice, there's a distinctly subtler and gentler way I made it. As opposed to "So Belle, not only are you disrespecting someone else's religious beliefs, you are willing to lie and be two faced about it, too? That's rather pathetic."

It's all about the subtlety. Go in quiet, and you'll be in and out before she knows it. While that approach may not be wisest for, say, a sex life, it's definitely applicable in any kind of potentially heated debate.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
For goodness sake someone pick up a foil and go fight with Psycho Triad. He acts like he needs to work out some frustration tonight or something. [Wink]
 
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
 
Actually just got back from fencing, Adrian. Did pretty well too. I just need to get some sleep, probly.

Though exposing trolls is a good alternative.

* jabs a sign into ground reading: "Don't feed the trolls" *

[edit: spelling, spelling, spelling]

[ January 29, 2004, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Psycho Triad ]
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
One more point and I'm done on this. I need sleep.

Lalo, if I don't bother Paul face to face anymore with my requests to pray for him - then what business of his or yours is it what I do in my private prayer life?

I would never want to offend Paul to his face, that would be a pretty poor Christian witness, doncha think?

I said I knew he wouldn't understand. And the fact that he doesn't believe in God anyway should mean that whatever I do in my prayer life is the same to him as if I chanted the ingredients of my breakfast cereal out loud.

Like I said, pray to Satan to save my soul. Means nothing to me because I know your prayer would be pointless. My soul is already spoken for, and Big Red can't touch it.
 
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
 
Random:

quote:
Do you believe in hell?
quote:
You will when you get there
quote:
Let's put it this way, you belive in God all your life and you die, no heaven, no everlasting life, all that was wasted was an hour every Sunday and maybe some good deeds sprinkled here and there. But lets see the flip side, there is a God, well, you're gonna have whole lot of time to think about your mistake...
[Laugh] this whole deally

Actually, while reading this I remembered trying a similar tactic (read: the same tactic) on someone once. And I had to wonder, how many people have, as a newbie, popped into discussions like this to throw this exact same piece of useless information into a fairly decent topic?
 
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
You know, with the combination of my religion and my personal outlooks, there are a LOT of things people say to me out of kindness and tact that chill my spine. For instance, something as small as "bless you" when you sneeze was connected with the belief that sneezing meant your soul is trying to escape. Or, as another example, I don't celebrate the Holidays because many of them have pagan origins, but during every, single holiday, it's always "Happy this" or "Merry that". If they're going to be near me for an extended period of time (ie. Workmate, Schoolmate, Neighbor, etc.), I'll let them know that I'm uncomfortable with those phrases. But if it's just a passing stranger, who cares (I just say thank you, though I'm sure never to be the one saying it), as long as they have your best interest in mind? And if it isn't a stranger, how should the person you're conversing with know you're offended by it unless you tell them? Now, if they know you're offended by such phrases, and were making fun of your atheism (as that is what I'm assuming you are - if I'm wrong, sorry), and telling you they would pray for you tauntingly, that's another thing. But that didn't sound like what you're referring to here.
 
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
 
quote:
For instance, something as small as "bless you" when you sneeze was connected with the belief that sneezing meant your soul is trying to escape
Actually, this has been talked about here before. I think we determined it was actually related to hoping someone wouldn't catch the plague or something. I'll have to look it up.

Edit: Okay, I'm full of crap. It wasn't at Hatrack, it was for my ESL class. Here's a link, anyway.

Bless you

[ January 29, 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Snopes says "we'll never know."
 
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
Really? I could've sworn I picked up a book at my library a few years ago that had explained that it had to do with the departure of souls. If I remember correctly, I believe the book was about the twelfth century or so. Oh well, it may have been one of those phrases that are derived from a number of different sources.

In any case, I'm in no fear of catching the plague because I sneezed, either. [Smile]
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
When the alternative is "Did you get any on you?", I don't think I'll get too offended at "Bless you."
 
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
 
Well, Snopes snows it all, I guess.

Frisco: Or, "Did you catch my gum?"

[ January 29, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
 
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
quote:
There are two motivations I can see for someone to say "I'll pray for you."

1. They mean it as a form of comfort. Since they believe that having people pray for an individual will help that individual to cope with their problems, they believe that when you hear those words, they will give you added hope and strength. These people expect that even if you don't believe in the same efficacy of prayer that they do, you will at worst take their words to mean, "I'll be thinking about you," which for most people IS comforting.

2. They use that phrase as a means to make themselves look holy and spiritual. They say it to you, not so that you will feel better, but so that they will look superior to you. The more areligious you are, the more they gain from it.

To add to number two, also to make you feel like you are doing something wrong, are thinking/believing something wrong, or are a generally bad person.
 
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
I don't think telling somebody else you would pray for them would mean that as much as, say, "Go to hell" or "You have not found Christ yet," or even something like "Do you know Christ?".

Boy, I sure am one for run-on sentences tonight. Yay!
 
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
 
We could use a cabbage patch smilie.

Right HERE.

Go Goat-ee, it's your birthday...:cabbagepatch:
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
This is actually the main reason I usually don’t say, “I’ll pray for you” unless I know the person I’m talking to is someone who would appreciate it. (On Hatrack or in similar situations. If someone walks into my office at church and tells me their problems, I assume they’re okay with me praying for them.)

Paul, I think an appropriate response would be, “No thank you” or “I appreciate the concern, but I’d rather you didn’t.”
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
The point I'm trying to make is that, whether or not you think that he should, Paul doesn't want people to pray for him and is bothered when they tell him that they are going to. Not suprisingly, when you don't respect that he has his reasons for that, you don't see anything disrespectful about telling him, "I'll pray for you." when he is bothered by it.

Praying for someone when you know they don't want you to is disrepectful, even if you really really think it's the right thing to do. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it. They are more important things than being respectful. However, know that you are direspecting that person and their wishes. What's much worse, though, is when someone has something bad happen to them and you tell them that you'll pray for them, they tell you that they don't want you to, and then you get upset at them or tell them that you will anyway. Make up your mind. Are you trying to help that person out in the way that is right for them, or are you trying to help them out in the way that is right for you?

edit: I'm not saying that you should pretend or do things that you yourself don't really believe in, but it's important to recognize that just because you feel a certain way about something, doesn't mean that the other person that you are ptetty much forcing it on (that's putting it too strongly, but I can't think of another way to put it) should or is going to feel that way about it.

[ January 30, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I know you won't understand this Paul, so it's probably pointless to explain, but I feel like it's something I HAVE to do. I think it's part of my role as a Christian, and something that God wants me to do. Sometimes I pray for people that don't want me to and sometimes I pray for people I don't want to pray for or even like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adrian, you poor soul. While I'm sure you won't understand, I must pray to Satan for the recovery of your soul. I know you probably don't want me to, and we may not even like each other, but it's part of my role as a Satanist to pray for lost and uncomprehending souls like yourself. Someday Satan will save your soul, even if you can't understand why during your life.

Now, I do dig Adrian and all, but maybe that attitude can come off as a wee bit self-righteous? Possibly obnoxious? Bordering on the amusingly self-absorbed?

quote:
One more point and I'm done on this. I need sleep.

Lalo, if I don't bother Paul face to face anymore with my requests to pray for him - then what business of his or yours is it what I do in my private prayer life?

I would never want to offend Paul to his face, that would be a pretty poor Christian witness, doncha think?

I said I knew he wouldn't understand. And the fact that he doesn't believe in God anyway should mean that whatever I do in my prayer life is the same to him as if I chanted the ingredients of my breakfast cereal out loud.

Like I said, pray to Satan to save my soul. Means nothing to me because I know your prayer would be pointless. My soul is already spoken for, and Big Red can't touch it.

Belle, methinks you miss my point. For my part, I seriously doubt Satan's en route to steal your soul. But if I did, it's still -- to repeat what I said earlier -- ridiculously self-righteous and self-absorbed of me to not only believe I know better than you do about gods-related matters, but that my intervention's going to save you.

Don't you?

Sure, it's none of my business just how obnoxious you or anyone else are in your private prayer life -- you can pray for God to save the souls of interracial or homosexual couples, and I'm not about to interfere. That doesn't mean I -- the result of an interracial relationship and starter of many -- am necessarily not offended or amused by self-righteousness.

If you pray to God for your own healing, it's fine with me. If a loved one dies and you want your god to help you through it, it's fine with me. Actually, it's right in line with my (and, I believe, Freud's) theory that most people's gods are just father-figure images with a certain set of morals projected on to them. But if and when you assign those father figures responsibility for other people's lives is when you start moving into some pretty hazy territory.

Paul clearly doesn't worship the same gods you do -- to say that your god's going to intervene in his life is to inflate your own importance in the greater scheme of the universe and marginalize both him and his religious beliefs. You cross the line from concerned friend to obnoxious busybody when you insist on informing Paul that you're going to have your god concern himself with Paul's life. Let alone informing Paul he can't understand why you feel obligated to meddle in affairs you were never invited to participate in.

Keeping silent about your religious intervention in Paul's life is at least polite, even if you go to bed each night hoping God gives Paul the wisdom to solve the troubles you think he has, or hoping God gives a homosexual the wisdom to understand that his love is a sin, or hoping God gives a black man the wisdom to understand that God never meant for races to interbreed. However, insisting on having your gods do anything to anyone's life but your own is obnoxiously self-absorbed, as I said above. If your gods are omnipotent, they'll know about his troubles anyway. And if you're wrong about your gods (which, to Paul, you necessarily must be), all you end up being is a woman concerning herself in the problems of others that she was never invited to participate in.

I like to think you're better than that, and I'm sure whoever's thrusting themselves into the solution to Paul's problems believe they deserve a better title than self-righteous busybody, too. I wish they'd act it.
 
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
And I'll have you know I missed valuable conversation time with Squick to write that. My god's going to shorten your life span by that much time so you know how it feels.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I'm down with being prayed for as long as I don't have to answer the door to get it.

Mind you, ever since I've moved into an actual apartment, I've mellowed big bunches about the whole thing.
 
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
I honestly don't want to get involved in this topic -- there's a little too much anger flowing in the thread. But when reading this, I thought back to the discussions we've had here in the past about LDS Baptism for the Dead, and the similarities between that topic and this. I know I pondered endlessly about the subject, because I don't know if there's a simple and acceptable answer. I found the old thread here, though it's possible there was more than one. I haven't read through it all recently, seeing as how it's 13 pages.

Belle, I don't mean to pick on you (or anyone else, for that matter), but yours happened to be one of the first responses in the thread. You're completely against someone performing a religious act on your behalf in that case, but you feel not only ok with, but responsible for, praying for someone who doesn't want you to? Do you believe the responsibility felt by that LDS member to be any less than yours?

(Please note -- I'm not taking any sides here, just asking the question.)

--Pop
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I guess I wouldn't tell anyone I was praying for them if I didn't think they wanted me to. I don't think I ever have before. And I tend not to pray for anyone I am not closely connected to--i.e., I don't go up to strangers or acquaintances and ask them out of the blue if I can pray for them. The prayers I make are one way I have of taking care of my own, I guess. They are based on situations I am aware of and involved in somehow, never some general prayers for "God to save their soul."

Of course prayer is much more effective when followed up with support, comfort, understanding, whatever I can provide. There doesn't have to be any preaching involved.

Papa Moose, I saw the connection too, but I personally didn't want to bring the subject of baptism for the dead into this particular thread and have to defend it along the lines of the current discussion. Too much negativity flying around already. This isn't the environment where the discussion will be worthwhile. And it's too late, and I'm going to bed. [Smile]
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
There are certainly ways to insult by praying for or offering to pray for others.

The Carmelite nuns decided to pray in their nearby chapel for the salvation of all of the souls who experienced Auchwitz. Which displeased a large number of Jews, who saw the Shoah as an ultimate consequence of previous treatment by those who called themselves "christian leaders". And that RomanCatholic officials have no right to pray for the souls of those whom they condemned -- or at least didn't try to help -- in life.

After a preliminary conversation.
"Well, why don't you join us at our church meeting on the Sabbath?"
"I'm quite happy being a Mormon."
"Well, I'll say an extra prayer for you so that Jesus will show you the correct path to salvation."

"The Bible says 'Spare the rod, and spoil the child'."
"Nonetheless, I don't believe that whipping children is necessary. Your interpretation lacks reconciliation with the total message."
"I'll pray for you."

Sometimes an open curse is less insulting, for being more honest, than a sanctimonious prayer.
Especially if "I'll pray for you." appears to be 'getting the last word in': an honest prayer needs no public announcement of the intent to pray.

[ January 30, 2004, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
 
Hmmm... As a Christian, I have found myself in Paul's shoes. You see, I smoke. And besides just being a probable health risk and all-round stupid thing to do, many in my "Christian community" believe that by doing so I am leading a life of sin. Maybe so. And besides that I've done a few stupid things in my short life that many other Christians (at least those I personally know) see as anti-Christian behavior. Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I make mistakes in life (as I'm pretty sure everyone does), but... I hate, hate, hate when someone comes up to me and says they'll be praying for me with the obvious idea that I somehow do not believe in God or something anymore. I realize this isn't exactly the situation Paul is refering to, but I think I understand.

I mean, I think most Christians would take offense if a Muslim said they would pray for them (do Muslims pray for others? -- I don't know much of anything about that religion, I'm just trying to come up with an example mot quite as hyperbolic as Satanism. [Smile] ). On a knee-jerk reactionary level, I would.

I do pray for others. But I don't say, "I'll be praying for you," to them. I just do it. I've always felt that telling someone you would pray for them -- unless they asked -- unintentionally implies that you are superior to them. I have asked people -- well, only one person, actually -- if I could pray for them, but I never just assume that saying I will would help them in any way. Of course, I don't even like to say, "I'll be thinking of you" or other similar remarks, either. I prefer to actually take some form of action to demonstrate my care if at all possible -- even just having a conversation with them.

Just a few thoughts I had... Great topic, Paul.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
I would never want to offend Paul to his face, that would be a pretty poor Christian witness, doncha think?

(I think I picked this up from one of Belle's posts)

I'm a more low key person. I know we're not supposed to be ashamed of the Gospel, but I usually say "I'll be thinking about you." If the person knows me very well, they will know that means I'm praying for them. I'm big on soft answers in real life. Anyway, I just don't see where being in folks's faces is a necessary element of being Christian. But then, I know everyone's religious faith is individual.

When my son died, I had a whole huge chip on my shoulder about folks trying to offer sympathy and condolences. I was also quasi anti-agnostic for a while. So I can relate. But I could see that I have a choice of either never telling anything about myself to folks, or else accepting their uncomfortable replies.

Edit: Is there something bad that happened, Paul, or do you think it is a reaction some folks have to your (assumed) unbelief in God? (to be honest, I seldom remember to pray for folks, even the ones who outright ask.)

[ January 30, 2004, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
I'm big on soft answers in real life.
I'm big on pooka. [Smile]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
[Kiss] CT
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Well, I can't speak for Belle, but that thread was my introduction to Hatrack -- I signed up to be able to reply to it. Figures, neh? [Wink]

I see a difference between doing something that is CONTRARY to someone's religion -- something they view as harmful -- and something they simply view as useless.

That said, I would never pray for something for someone else that they did not want. I would pray for someone to find a job if they were looking, for example, but not for them to find God. [Wink] I would also be very hesitant to pray for someone who specifically asked me not to; and surely would not tell someone I was going to pray for them unless I was pretty sure they would be encouraged/happy to hear it.
 
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
It still may not be obvious to the people talking to Paul that he will be offended.

I mean, perhaps Paul considers himself harmed, and he has that right. But to most people, there's no outward indication that they're harming him, and they're trying to do the opposite. I would guess that they see prayer as the least troublesome thing to do, and then Paul is throwing it back in their face.

I think this may answer his original question, as to why they get mad when he refuses. Something else, they think, might do harm, but how could prayer?
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Iccy, I think the big beef about BftD is that baptism is a ceremony that, by definition, negates all previous baptisms. Prayer does nothing similar.

Granted, I think a lot of religions feel that judgement occurs at death, so a baptism years after the fact should warrant nothing more that a roll of the eyes--much like an unwanted prayer should.

But at the same time, it (BftD) seems to me an arrogant thing to do. If you take it at face value, it retroactively removes all free will from the beliefs of the dead. It seems like a very petty technicality, and if I had been less of an "eh, whatever" teenager, I definitely wouldn't have taken part in it.

But I don't really mind people praying for me. I just make sure they know that they're doing it for themselves rather than for me. If you keep replying with "Whatever floats your boat.", eventually, they stop telling you about it. *shrug*

[ January 30, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Hey Bob man, I mentioned that thread on page one. Sometimes, I just gotta pretend people read my stuff.

I agree that Belle finds it unacceptable to have LDS baptize her/people she cares about, but finds it acceptable to pray on someone else's behalf in the name of her own religion.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
BTW, Shan, I'm sending powerful feng-shui-ey vibes right at your kitchen cabinets right now.

"mmmmrrrreeeeeaaammmmmmmeeeee"
(*50's sci-fi/horror flick ray gun noises)

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Pass the Sushi (Member # 6162) on :
 
I was a wee little second grader when my maternal grandmother died. It hit me kinda hard because:
A) We had a close relationship.
B) The I'm praying for your family from everyone
hurts more than it helped.
Prayer wasn't going to bring her back, Jesus wasn't gonna come down and make it better. But people acted like it would and wouldn't let me just remember the times that I shared with her and my family.(I'm not to big on the food tradition either) A teacher of mine going through the loss of her mother that same year understood what I was going through enough to just sit back and talk. It was much more comforting to hold our loved ones in our hearts and memories by telling stories than to constantly hear "I'm praying for your family."

Recently a friend's dad died. A buddy and I attended the wake and sat with our friend and for a few hours we brought his dad back by just shooting the breeze. All the little league coaching he did, camping, boating, countless other things he did for us stupid punks...the guy was one of the most alive people we ever met and he remains so in our memories. We could actually smile and laugh as we talked about the old days. But everytime an old woman passed by with an "I'm praying for your family." my friend would just kinda zone out and you could see new pain instead of a healing comforting effect the phrase was supposed to convey...

It's because of things like that I never put much stock in the I'm praying for you bit. Even if its sincere it hurts but I still try to say Thank you or in the cases where I've known for sure it was a last word sorta thing(if there is a hell sarcastic blessers will be right next to TV evangelist) "Thank you, I'm sure God loves a brown-noser" is a good ending note.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well, without getting into some of the debate....

I often say this to people. I say "I will pray for you" because it is the one thing I have the power to do, in an otherwise powerless situation. It is the only way I feel I can contribute and show my concern.

So my question now is -- how do I tell which people are going to get offfended? Each time, before I say "I'm going to pray for you" am I supposed to say -- "uh, can I ask you if you believe in God"?

I'm mean -- how do you WANT people with real concern to handle this? I'm asking in sincerity because I don't want to cause offense to another either, but I have simply no way of knowing who would APPRECIATE my prayers, and who would be offended.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by Beca (Member # 4340) on :
 
I really liked Frisco's line about increasing one's rate of sinning to make up for the prayer. I could never deliver it properly, though.

I've found that I also have a hard time coming up with responses to "I'll pray for you." Mostly because it's so....out of the blue. But I also have a hard time engaging in small talk about the weather, and responding to anything resembling "Wow! You've lost a lot of weight!" (most variations of which are joking renditions of the 'you're wasting away before my very eyes' sort).

When I'm not in the mood for chit-chat (which is often), I just pretend it's a compliment, although a weird one. And I say "thank you" and smile and then forget about it. If I'm not in the mood for it, and I'm annoyed, I give them the "my, you're very strange" fish-eyed look while saying "thank you, I think" and smiling. And then I forget about it. In the long run, they mean well, and I can choose whether or not to get offended by something. If I let other people offend me against my wishes, I'm just letting them win. Of course, sometimes there's a certain pleasure to be had from seething.

This doesn't solve the weather problem, though. I usually have to say "yep, sure is cold" and try to keep walking away from the person, but some people are *really insistent* about talking about the weather.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Beca, what’s even weirder is when people keep talking to you about the weather as if there were something you could do about it. Which, I guess, is the opposite problem from Paul and people who don’t think prayer is effective. What should religious people do when people who do think prayer is effective ask them to “arrange” things (like the weather) with God?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I thought about this last night after I went offline.

I'm going to dismiss the trite snippy condescending version of "I'll pray for you" (which everyone agrees is less than tasteful) for the moment and make an assumption that both parties are equally offended.

The person who doesn't wish the prayers because they don't believe they have a soul so it seems like the most pointless waste of time in the entire world.

The person who wishes to do the praying because they believe the soul is the most important thing in the entire world and can't believe that the gift of prayer would be rejected.

So now we have two people with equally deeply held convictions and a fundamental irreconcilable disagreement. I don't think they can even necessarily agree to disagree.

The real question is how do these people get along together in a community without causing a feud? Not talking about it doesn't work because it buries resentment deeper. And yet talking about it too much would escalate into something destructive that is Unmaking whichever side you are on.

What do you do?

AJ
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
dkw, I know you don't have anything to do with this weather! I think today is the coldest day I have experienced in my life. The nice thing is that once it gets below about 10F it all just feels cold to me, and I can't tell the difference between 8 above or 8 below.
[Big Grin]

AJ
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
The religion I grew up with teaches that it's rude and intrusive to pray for someone else without their permission, even though prayer is a huge cornerstone of the faith. I think the reasoning is that you have no idea what a stranger wants or needs, really, so you can't interfere with them based on your own assumptions. So I respect the beliefs and privacy of others, and find it rude when someone has the nerve to force their own faith on me.

If they're honestly trying to help and don't realize that I'd rather not be involved in their chats with God, I won't say anything or get offended. But if someone is clearly, like my evil grandmother, using prayer for me as a manipulative and self-righteous tool, I get mighty darn upset.

Either way, though, it makes me uncomfortable. If I don't have the same spiritual beliefs that you do, why on earth would you think your requests to God would mean anything to me?

[ January 30, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Response to Papa Moose from the previous page:

You know I did a lot of thinking last night why the baptism bothered me as much as it did, and what the difference in this situation was.

And here's where I think it comes in. When you baptise me after death, you're saying that my own version of my salvation is not good enough.

Mormons always get upset when people say they are not Christian, yes? Well, part of being Christian to me, is recognizing that anyone who says they believe in Jesus Christ as their personal savior is a Christian and is saved. That means that person could be Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, Catholic or undeclared. I recognize you as a brother in faith when you tell me you are a Christian.

The Mormon baptism of the dead, when that person was a Christian in life, says "You say you're a Christian but we don't think YOUR version of Christianity is good enough."

Can you see why that is insulting? I don't want to go through that thread again, because I got very angry on it (and it's one of the reasons I took a several month Hatrack break) but the difference in these situations as I see it are that what I do in my prayer life I do out of obedience, and out of concern and love for the person.

I don't see praying for someone's goodwill when they aren't believers as something that is offensive and harmful. I would say it was offensive if a fellow believer came to me and said "I'm going to pray for your salvation." "But I'm a Christian who is quite comfortable with her salvation as it is, that's not necessary." "No, I'm going to do it anyway, because your version of salvation isn't good enough."

Do you see the difference?

[ January 30, 2004, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
*shrug*

I think this is something that neither side is ever really going to understand. Kind of like that whole "Merry Christmas" thing last year. One side doesn't understand why others want to say it, the other side doesn't understand why people wouldn't want to hear it. Oh well.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Belle, I see that you see a difference.

But if that call to prayer can hurt someone who is already in a difficult situation, they why in the world would you do it? I think the clear solution is, if you are certain that person would want you to pray for them then offer it. If you are certain that person does not believe in God or prayer, then do not offer it. If you are not certain, then don't offer it. Instead ask what you can do for them, or even ask permission to pray for them instead of stating so outright.

In someone's time of pain and suffering, it seems that one should take every step possible to reduce their suffering. And now that you know that it could hurt to offer prayer to someone like Paul, now you shouldn't offer prayer to him. Learn from this his wishes, instead of insisting that you're always right.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Belle: I'd say that's pretty analogous, really. When one prays for someone who doesn't believe in prayer it seems rather like saying "your beliefs as to what's good for you don't matter. I know what's good for you."
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
*nod*

I submit that it may very well look analogous to you.

Matters of faith aren't logical. I may not be able to adequately describe to you why I feel a difference in the two situations, but I do.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Well, here's the question. If you understand that it's analogous to some people (usually the ones who get resentful of prayer directed at them), then would you refrain from offering them prayer (and praying for them behind their backs)?
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
No. [Smile]

For the simple fact that I see a difference in the two. It's not analogous to me. I may look that way to you, but it is not to me. I see one as something that is done out of compassion and caring and can do no possible harm and the other that is done with good intentions but with a level of superiority (my version of Christianity is better than yours)

There is a difference between doing something spiritual on behalf of a person who doesn't believe in spiritual things, and doing something spiritual to a spiritual person against their will. To Paul, prayer doesn't matter. but to me, baptism does.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I haven't read this whole thread, so pardon me if this repetative.

At WenchCon, I took a bunch of cool Mormons to their meeting. We were running late (not my fault, I swear) and Hobbes kept saying , We're going to be late, I hate to be late."

I yellowed a light or two, and to be funny, I said, "I', trying guys, I'm trying! I even pinked a light for you."

katharina said , "We'll pray for your soul." I couldn't help but laugh. Then I said, "I hope you know you're one of very few people who could say that without getting a smack." [Wink]

I was joking, really, but I know that sometimes things like that seem very condescending. Sometimes not, though. I think it's nice when people know I'm going through something bad and they say , "I'll pray for you."

It doesn't bother me, because it , at the very least, does no harm. On the other hand, sometimes the "I'll pray for you"s are frought with disapproval and judgement. Those are not cool. Those are, in fact, offensive.

It's more in the attitude. I can tell when someone is being caring and when they are not. THAT makes the difference to me.

The difference between being a friend and being someone's Sunday School Project, you know.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
*crosses Olivia off her Sunday School project list*

I pray for you a lot, girl. You'll just have to smack me when you see me.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
I'm a more low key person. I know we're not supposed to be ashamed of the Gospel, but I usually say "I'll be thinking about you." If the person knows me very well, they will know that means I'm praying for them. I'm big on soft answers in real life.
I'm very much taken with pooka's approach in any case of uncertainty about how it will be received, whatsoever. "I'll be thinking about you" is a lovely way to communicate all that needs to be said.

Those that are themselves religious will either understand to interpret appropriately (if they know you are religious as well) or can ask you to pray for them if it is meaningful, and those who are not religious do not have additional potential stresses placed on them in a time of crisis.

Because we can all agree that at times of such deep grieving, it is about the person who is in the severe pain, right? (I forget this sometimes in my haste to be helpful, but really the most caring thing to do is to be as acutely sensitive as possible to the needs of the grieving. That means, sometimes, that we onlookers and friends must carry our own burden of helplessness, but then that's a gift in itself, too.)
 
Posted by jana at jade house (Member # 6101) on :
 
Paul Goldner:
I do not know you from Adam, so I do not know how you really are in person, but your words indicate to me that you are not a grateful person by nature. An attitude of gratitude is not a position of weakness and neither is gracefully accepting a proffered gift of self from a sincere and gentle heart.

I cannot understand you anymore than I can understand why my dog thinks every golden retriever needs to be attacked. They are both hounds. You and I are both people. I happen to be a person with a rich prayer life, it is my nature. But you need to bark at it.

It is not really egocentric to think that everyone should just "know" what you want and what you need, and be able to produce it in a way that you feel meets your personal standard?

You must be a hard friend to have.

Jana
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Belle, You're on the No-Smack list, too. [Wink] You should know that [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
quote:
There is a difference between doing something spiritual on behalf of a person who doesn't believe in spiritual things, and doing something spiritual to a spiritual person against their will.
See, to me this sounds like only the beliefs of the spiritual people matter to you. If an atheist is uncomfortable with a Christian praying on their behalf, too bad. But if one Christian is uncomfortable with the prayers of a different kind of Christian, then it's okay for them to be miffed. How does that make sense?

quote:
To Paul, prayer doesn't matter. but to me, baptism does.
But I think he's saying that it does matter to him. He doesn't like it. It makes him uncomfortable. Why disregard these honest feelings?

[ January 30, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
You're being remarkably rude, jana. Paul has done nothing to warrant being called an ungreatful, friendless dog, for Pete's sake.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
I yellowed a light or two, and to be funny, I said, "I', trying guys, I'm trying! I even pinked a light for you."

katharina said , "We'll pray for your soul." I couldn't help but laugh. Then I said, "I hope you know you're one of very few people who could say that without getting a smack."

That is EXACTLY what I thought of when I saw this thread.

From my perspective:

We're a little late because I didn't write down the address and we had to hunt it up again. Hobbes did indeed keep lamenting being late, but I was ignoring him since there wasn't anything I could do about it.

So, when Olivia announces she just ran a red light, I'm thinking, "Oka-a-ay... I don't know what to do with that information. Is she confessing? Bringing up a random topic of conversation? Pointing out the irony of running a red light on the way to church?"

It had a confessorily feel, which felt traditional-Christian to me, so I said the funniest traditional-Christian thing I could think of and hoped I wasn't being too blasphemous.

Olivia looked shocked for a second, then laughed and said if it was anyone else, I'd be toast. *grin* Then said that was okay, since she knew I didn't mean it condescendingly, and that would be okay. That made me feel bad for all the Katie-thinks-she's-funny elements in my comment.

[ January 30, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
o_O

That's the second time somebody's mistaken me for Papa Moose in the last 24 hours.

I reckon that's a compliment.

-o-

Clearly, there is a distinction between the obviously sanctimonious get-the-last-word "I'll pray for you," (because you clearly are tainted), and an honest expression of potentially misguided goodwill. Nobody here is defending the former. So quit attacking the former, because it's a straw man.

-o-

quote:
Paul, I think an appropriate response would be, “No thank you” or “I appreciate the concern, but I’d rather you didn’t.”
Okay, Dana. But, would you pray for him?

[Smile]
 
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
This reminds me of the issue of men opening doors for women who want to be called "Ms.".

I'm not trying to be flippant. I do think it's all in the attitude, though.

For instance, when I was an unmarried pregnant teenager I had a few old ladies and a sister in law tell me they were going to "pray for me" in the sense that I would need to come around and decide to give up my baby that way they thought I should. The phrase would appear after short, disapproving lectures in the halls at church.

I've also had people offer to pray for me after my second child died. Compared to the stupid things some people said (I had a one person tell me that these things just happen; that was a blow, since I believe that things happen for a reason, even a non-readily apparent one) and that they know what it's like to lose a child, because their baby once had a bad case of the flu. In comparison, "I'll pray for you" was the best thing by far. And it did comfort me, once I was ready to be comforted.

I hate to think you have to ask about a belief in God before offering a prayer (kind of like in CA colleges where you have to ask for explicit consent for every level of intimacy to prevent date rape). It almost destroys the expression of faith that an offered pray embodies. "Oh, well, if you don't believe in God, then there's no point in praying." That sounds like I don't believe much in God, either, if that stops me from praying for you.

So, as a praying person, maybe I'll stop telling people I'll pray for them and just do it. I'm sorry if that makes you feel violated. *sigh* It's unfortunate, the trend it may herald, not praying for others. Ever since some women started making a stink about men opening doors for them, a lot of men have gotten really insensitive towards women. If only some of those ladies could've been ladies.

I hope that doesn't happen with prayer, since having humans concerned about other humans is a nice thing.

[Dont Know]

[ January 30, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Jana-
As I said in later posts, I have a hard time accepting a lot of different forms of help. This is not because it puts me in a position of weakness, or anything of the sort, but because I have an emotional need to deal with my own problems. When people say "what can I do to help?" its easy to answer "Nothing, thanks, I'll work through it on my own," or "What I really need is X." As an example of X, for a period of my life, I wasn't going to sleep because I was scared of lying awake, so I would try to exhaust myself before getting in bed. This was causing a LOT of other problems. So I finally said to my father "At 10, can you just tell me to go to bed?" I wanted that help, asked for it, and my father was able to take that step for m.

On the other hand, if I say "Nothing, thanks, I'll work through it on my own", most people are ok with that. THey recognize that not everyone wants or needs help. There are a select few, however, who take this as an excuse to pray for me. "Nothing, thanks, I'll work through it on my own." "Well, I'll pray for you." Excuse me, but didn't I just say I don't want help? Any rejection of the prayer help is taken as an offense, no matter how I have worded it. When I say "Nothing, thanks" and then the response is "Can I bring you some cookies?" "No, thank you," is not taken offensively. But to the person PRAYING, it is.

I think I'm generally an easy friend to have. I don't ask for very much out of friendship, and I give a LOT of my time to my friends. But when they tell me something isn't wanted, I don't give it. I think thats common curtesy.

Incidentally, I don't like being compared to a dog, either.

I'm not saying don't have a rich prayer life, I'm saying don't involve me in it.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It's a matter of comfort, it's a matter of communication.

The Prayer is trying to communicate compassion and help to someone. The onus is on the PRAYER to put it in terms that will actually be of help. In communication, in teaching, and in everything, if someone wants to put a message across, they put it in the receiver's language.

If the Prayer insists that the receiver accept comfort in the Prayer's language instead of the reciever's own, then it is NOT a purely altruistic act. It means the communication is centered on the Prayer instead of the receiver.

In other words, if you know the other person isn't going to appreciate it, to insist on saying it is incredibly selfish.

And what more offends my geeky soul, it's a failure of communication. You want to bring comfort to someone whom you think needs it, tailor the message so it actually will. Pray on your own.

[ January 30, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
So.... my relationship with God is between myself and God, right? Out of honest curiosity, why do people believe that intervening between me and God on my behalf is going to change anything? Is the idea that God needs a certain number of prayers before He'll help out?

In my childhood religion, to bring it up again, prayer wasn't a one-on-one "ask God to fix a problem for you" kind of thing. The idea, as I understood it, was to pray for understanding and clear thoughts, so that you could see that whatever bad thing you thought you saw wasn't real, that everything was, in reality, perfect and whole. Prayer was really more of a relaxing, clear your mind of fear and doubt kind of experience.

So I can't say I really understand the religions where God is actually supposed to step in and change things. Mine is not a very participatory God (as I've grown older, in fact, I've come to believe that "God" isn't a being at all, but a representation of all that is Good).

I really don't get, then, why praying for someone is supposed to do any good at all. Would someone mind explaining?
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
katharina: nail, head, perfect strike. Bravo.
 
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Yes, kat is exactly right. [Smile]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'll preface by saying that in real life I'm into soft answers. But "pooka" is kind of my picture of Dorian Grey. So I know that here I get in folks faces all the time. Usually without even trying. Some might even say soft answers are really all about passive aggression.

Farmgirl wrote:
quote:
I'm mean -- how do you WANT people with real concern to handle this?
Maybe the trouble is that when someone is in pain, the way people give them condolences makes it feel like the well-wisher actually thinks their truism will make the wishee feel better.

So we have canned "I'll pray for you."

Then there is Hallmark "I'll pray for you." Sincere, but the recipient is thinking "If God could help me, why did He let this happen?"

Unfortunately, "I'll pray for you." has become overused, nearly to the point of "Goodbye". (Does anyone avoid saying this, either orthodox Jew or Atheist? Because I think it's archaic "God be with you". Just curious)
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Some comments -- Belle, I find it interesting you believe that the LDS BftD could harm you. I personally find it quite disrespectiful, but my reading of most literature from various Christian denomination leads me to notice two things -- most denominations don't acknowledge completely involuntary acts as being spiritually binding, and even those that do don't find acts commited on other people binding. The LDS church believes that baptism can be conferred on one person through another; if you do not hold that belief, how could you believe that it is actively harmful to you since it is disconnected from you?

I'm not certain of your beliefs on the matter, which is why there are so many speculatives above; to wit, do you consider completely involuntary actions spiritually binding, and do you consider it possible for one person to be baptized in place of another?

Also, I'm fairly certain that among the diversity of human religious beliefs there are probably some people who believe that if you pray for them it harms them. Would you respect their wishes on the matter?
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Katharina-
beautifully said.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Paul, in the situation you describe, when you say you want to work it out on your own, I think you should take the response “Well then I’ll pray for you” as the religious person’s equivalent to wishing you good luck while you work on whatever it is. Imagine for a minute that someone told you they wanted to do something themselves and you said, “Well, good luck with that” (sincerely, not sarcastically) and they were offended by it. Mightn’t you be a little surprised/confused?

Note, I’m not saying they’re right to be offended, but you asked why some pray-ers were and I’m trying to offer a possible reason.

Edit because it might help if I actually included my possible reason along with the disclaimer. [Roll Eyes]

[ January 30, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Belle, I just want to let you know I respect your right to be offended by Baptism for the Dead. But Baptism of the Living doesn't always take, so I don't think Baptism takes away anyone's free will (I think Fugu said this). I'm sure it was covered on the other thread that there are people we don't Baptize at the request of their descendants and living representatives.

So I think it's okay to pray for someone who hasn't specifically told you to not pray for them. And that's all I would say is the same for Baptism for the Dead. If Publisher's Clearinghouse sends me a Sweepstakes entry, and I don't have to reply to win, I don't feel they have forced me to commit the sin of gambling. Hmmm. Would I accept the prize if I won? Hmmm. Hmmm.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
pooka -- I personally would be fine with baptism for the dead myself if it were phrased as an offered and optional aid to the dead person, as it is often defended as. However, when the wording of the ceremony was mentioned here on hatrack, it was not phrased in this way, but as something that was being done for the person. No option mentioned. This offends me.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Kat, I was NOT offended in the LEAST. I thought you knew that. I was being funny, too. And yeah, pointing outthe irony of becoming a scoff-law on the way to church. <grin>

I think we talked about this later, and it really is one of those things that HAS been said to me in an actively hurtful way that's difficult to explain to those who do not share my culture. However, I knew instinctively that was not what was in your heart. [Smile]

I think it sort of shocked me that you thought I looked offended before I laughed, because I didn't FEEL offended. Not at all. It was actually one of the best zingers of the weekend (too bad it didn't get in the Book).

Sometimes people say they'll pray for you out of judgement, sometimes out of pity. It's never uncomfortable for me if I sense that the person really cares for me, as a person. Because then I know what they mean.

And, truth is, I actually love it when friends with faith say they will pray for me. it makes me feel warm and fuzzy and loved. Very different in attitude from the "I'll pray for you, you horrible pathetic wretch." [Wink]

kat nailed it, really. I just wanted to make sure SHE knew I was in NO WAY offended by anything she said, and that it was, in fact, VERY FUNNY. [Smile]
 
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Argh! Whenever I see the subject of this title I think "He'll ask for a glass of milk." Which is annoying because it no way shape or form involves mice or the people that give them cookies.

Hopefully this thread will make other people suffer with me. Misery loves company after all.

Oh well, I'm sure there'll be enough people praying for me that I'll feel better by morning. [Wink]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"you can pray for God to save the souls of interracial or homosexual couples"

Eddie, I find your approach here more than a little inflammatory. You're DELIBERATELY making Belle's prayers -- and motives -- controversial and/or bigoted, which I strongly suspect is not the case. If you're talking about some generic "you," rather than the woman to whom you were replying, perhaps you should indicate that.
 
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Belle, I love your response to the situation. Respectfully defer to the wishes of your friend, but pray anyway.

There are really two actions going on here, and I fear they have been confused. The first action is the actual prayer. This is between the prayer and God. Geez, I hate the confusing noun form of that word. Okay, the supplicant and God. While the prayer may concern the friend, the friend has no stake in it, control over it, or knowledge of it. This being the case, it is the supplicant's right to pray as he or she sees fit. If I pray, it is because I believe I'm doing the right thing. God knows better than I do what needs to be done anyway, so it's really up to him where it goes from there, but prayer is how we communicate with him.

The second action is the one I take issue with. In fact, I have no sympathy for it whatsoever, and that is the act of telling a person that you will/have been praying for them. That really has nothing to do with God. It's most often intended as either encouragement, or sanctimonious bullshit. The supplicant should, before telling a friend he is being prayed for, know that friend well enough to know whether he will be encouraged by that knowledge. But for me to tell an atheist I'm praying for him does absolutlely nothing to either aid my prayers or encourage my friend. In short, I'm being an ass, trying to make myself look serene and spiritual at the expense of my friend's pain.

Now if it's not a friend... i.e. if a complete stranger or casual acquaintance comes up and says he's praying for me, I first assume he's lying, and second couldn't care less. He has the right to pray for me, but no business telling me so.

In fact, if we are talking about Christians here (as I assume we are, since I have only observed that kind of spiritual backbiting in America by Protestants and their ilk) there is even a scriptural statement about all of this.
quote:
Mat 6:5 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

Mat 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees {what is done} in secret will reward you.

All of that to basically say, yeah I see why that makes you mad, Paul.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I agree with what you say, IdemosthenesI, about prayer should be private (unless requested otherwise) because it is private supplication. Your scriptual reference is on-target.

However, when a person (such as myself) says the words "I will be praying for you" or some such, we are only saying it with the meaning of " I care about you -- I'm thinking of you -- I will be doing whatever I can for you." It is meant to let them know we are truly concerned. That is all.

I can certainly go pray for someone without them having any knowledge that they have been in my prayers. And that is fine, and I often do pray for people who probably have no idea that I ever even think of them.

The only reason we sometimes verbalize it is just because we want to encourage them -- to let them know our concern and that we want to be helpful in some way. It is when we feel socially inadequate to do anything beyond that.

I guess now that I'm aware this offends some people, I will have to drop back to the simple "I'll be thinking of you, let me know if I can help." That will have to be sufficient. Then if I choose to pray for them, it will be behind my own closed door, and without their knowledge.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
BTW, Icarus, I wasn’t avoiding your question in my last post, just trying to figure out how to answer it in a way that is both completely honest and also good communication (ie: makes sense).

In the given situation, I would never pray for God to do anything to Paul against his will, including change his mind. (“his” in the preceding sentence refers to Paul, both times.) But I don’t think I could promise not to pray for him either. Prayer can be a kind of stream-of-consciousness thing, and doesn’t always involve words. If for some reason Paul’s trouble, whatever it was, was weighing on my mind, I don’t know that I’d be able to keep it completely out even if I did try. And to add some sort of verbal disclaimer to the prayer “but don’t bless Paul” seems strange. Further, if I was, in a formal prayer, praying for some group or category of people that Paul was included in, (for example, people who are traveling over a holiday weekend) I wouldn’t say “except Paul, because he doesn’t want to be prayed for.” So I guess the answer is: maybe.
 
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Farmgirl, I fear I may have been too aggressive. I really don't have a problem with letting other people know you are in their prayers to encourage them. However, I believe you should ONLY let them know if you are SURE it will encourage them. If you aren't sure, then you would be quite correct in picking a more spiritually neutral encourragement.
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
quote:
The supplicant should, before telling a friend he is being prayed for, know that friend well enough to know whether he will be encouraged by that knowledge. But for me to tell an atheist I'm praying for him does absolutlely nothing to either aid my prayers or encourage my friend. In short, I'm being an ass, trying to make myself look serene and spiritual at the expense of my friend's pain. [agreed --Ic]

Now if it's not a friend... i.e. if a complete stranger or casual acquaintance comes up and says he's praying for me, I first assume he's lying, and second couldn't care less. He has the right to pray for me, but no business telling me so.

IdemosthenesI, I don't draw the line where you do. As I mentioned before, there are clearly sanctimonious offers of prayer, and nobody here is really justifying that. But I don't think it is my (theoretically speaking, since I don't pray) responsibility to determine first whether or not you are receptive to the prayer before making a goodwill offer. When the shoe is on the other foot, when a Christian friend of mine offers to pray for me, even though I don't believe that this person's prayer will have any effect on me, I take it in the spirit in which it was offered. A friend (or stranger) who means well is offering what they see as a generous act. (Again, because it seems to need to be reiterated ad nauseum, I don't mean clearly sanctimonious offers.) I don't believe in the efficacy of the act, but I can and should appreciate the friendly intentions behind it, especially since it clearly does no harm. (Somebody raised this point earlier . . . What if Paul believes it harms him? Well, he has not said that. He has stated [as a fact, no less] that it has no effect.)

I agree with Kat's point about communicating in a manner your recipient will understand, but if you aren't aware that somebody is atheist, I don't think you're in the wrong in making the kind offer. I think it's absurd to make it the supplicant's responsibility to find out how the beneficiary feels about prayer before making a kind statement.

It is really not that hard to say a polite "Thank you" and go on your way.

If somebody makes a sincere offer, intending to be kind, and you chastise them for it, you are a churl, plain and simple. And if you assume that somebody is lying to you because it never occured to them to ask if you were atheist, you are a churl. Frankly, I can't comprehend why this is even being debated. Clearly, some of you find Christianity so distasteful that you don't even have the decency to be polite.

This is a no-brainer. *shrug*

So once again, no, I can't find any sympathy for this dilemma.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'd never say to someone who casually stated they were going to pray for me that I was offended. I'm only slightly offended by it, and consider it far more important that I be polite and smile and nod and say thank you. However, I am still offended by it, and its worth discussing, as many people consider the minimizing of offense important.
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
quote:
However, I believe you should ONLY let them know if you are SURE it will encourage them. If you aren't sure, then you would be quite correct in picking a more spiritually neutral encourragement.
Whereas, I would say that you should not let them know if you KNOW they will not be encouraged by it, but that it's not your responsibility to find out first.

It's that middle zone where we disagree.

When somebody means to be kind, you should respond to their intentions.

[ January 30, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
quote:
its worth discussing, as many people consider the minimizing of offense important.
I understand, but here is where I think we go too far being PC. As a latino, I think it would be silly and oversensitive of me to be offended if somebody calls me hispanic. I don't think people have the responsibility to find out which descriptor of my ethnic heritage I prefer. If people know what I prefer and use something else deliberately, then that, of course, is rude.

But people need to chill out just a little bit on what they find truly offensive. People who mean you no harm and don't look down on you shouldn't be considered offensive for having failed to hire a PI to find out all your little hot buttons.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Wereas, I would say that you should not let them know if you KNOW they will not be encouraged by it, but that it's not your responsibility to find out first.
I think that's a culture thing. In some religious cultures (like mine), it just isn't used often in regular conversation. It's been said a few times to me by other Mormons, and it brought tears to my eyes almost every time because it's sort of a big deal to say it.

It made me uncomfortable the first few times I heard semi-strangers say it - like they were sharing the details of their home life. I wasn't offended; I just had a weird disconnect.
 
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
I don't find Christianity distasteful at all. In fact, what I find distasteful is ostentatious Christianity. I have had people tell me they will pray for me. In fact, just yesterday I had someone who I didn't really know that well come into my place of business for the express purpose of telling me he was praying for my family. In that case, I appreciated the gesture, because even though I don't know him well, I know he is invested in my family's situation, and he is part of the community of faith that supports us. Nevertheless, the facts remain that

A. Telling someone you are praying for them has no effect other than encouragement.

B. Telling someone who does not believe in the efficacy of prayer that you are praying for them is not encouraging

and C. There are other ways to encourage someone other than letting them in on your relationship with God.

I think I probably drew the line in the wrong place too. In a community of faith, like a church, obviously the rules are different. But let's give a hypothetical example. Your child's teacher is going through a messy divorce. You have met the man (I started to type woman, then realized what I was about to do. Whole other thread there) at parent-teacher night and thought him a nice guy, but don't really have any knowledge of his beliefs. You want to encourage him. In that situation, I'm not saying you shouldn't pray for him, or that you shouldn't try to encourage him. I'm just saying that you should not try to encourage him by telling him you are praying for him. Try something else. Buy him a dartboard with his ex's picture on it, anything.

In fact, there are also situations when telling someone you are praying for them can be harmful. I doubt that the parents of a boy who had just been abused by a priest would appreciate the sentiment.
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
quote:
However, when the wording of the ceremony was mentioned here on hatrack, it was not phrased in this way, but as something that was being done for the person.
Huh. I don't know what the wording was, but anyone who would post it to an internet forum may not be a reliable source. But as the prayer ends in an "Amen" it is up to the recipient to ratify that with their own "Amen".
 
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
 
I wonder if I can avoid this problem altogether by offering comfort in the form of crisp twenty-dollar bills. [Wink]

Boy, come to think of it, I could use some serious comforting. [Big Grin]

[ January 30, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
 
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
This is really part of a larger issue for me. I remember at an OSC signing on time, he said the only TV station they had ever had blocked was the religious station. The reason was that for him, the name of Christ was sacred, and it was being used as a comma by every nutcase who could get close to a microphone.

We live in a society where there are TestaMints to freshen your breath, WWJD bracelets to declare your allegiance (notice I didn't say faith) and christian rap music to help fuel your aggression. This ubiquitousnessitizing (that was a fun word) of the faith only weakens it. katharina's story really illustrates my point. For the american protestant, the words "I'll pray for you" can mean anything from "I want you to know I support you and believe in you," to "Screw you, you bastard." However, very rarely in my experience has it actually meant "I'll pray for you." It's a catchphrase I hate to see cheapened. You can bet that in nations where it is illegal to speak openly about Christian faith, people don't take matters of spirituality so lightly.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Icarus-
I have, in fact, stated that it harms me.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Speaking of trying not to be deliberately offensive

quote:
Protestants and their ilk
Was that really necessary?
 
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
quote:
I see a difference between doing something that is CONTRARY to someone's religion -- something they view as harmful -- and something they simply view as useless.
rivka, what about people who believe that religion is harmful? There are certainly people out there like that.

quote:
There is a difference between doing something spiritual on behalf of a person who doesn't believe in spiritual things, and doing something spiritual to a spiritual person against their will. To Paul, prayer doesn't matter. but to me, baptism does.
Belle, I'm not trying to be rude, but would it be accurate to say that it all boils down to that you are assured that your way is the right way?

-------------

Thus far I think I pretty much agree with fugu (if I'm understanding him right). I don't really want people to pray for me, and to be honest it bothers me when people do. But I also understand the context in which the prayer is offered, and I appreciate the fact that the person cares and is trying to do right by me.

Ic, I agree with you to a point. It does get to the point where it's unreasonable to expect everyone to figure out everyone else's pet peeves before communicating with them. And maybe people should be less sensitive. But then, it's an emotional response, and emotions are not often reasonable.

I think it's really not reasonable to say, "You shouldn't feel the way you feel. It's silly. Get over it." People are pretty much going to feel however they feel and be offended or touched by whatever they will. However, it's quite reasonable to say, "Feel however you want about it, but try to restrain your behaviors."

If I treat someone in a way that they do not wish to be treated, then I am harming them. Most of the time I am not doing any serious or lasting harm, but I am still harming them. Knowingly harming someone indicates disrespect. Unknowingly harming someone does not, but subsequently finding out and then not apologizing does. However, respect for a person is not necessarily the most important thing. Some people think that respect for a deity or group of deities is more important than respect for people. For many people saying "I know you don't want it but I will pray for you anyway" is exactly like saying "I know you like heroin, but I'm putting you into rehab anyway." You choose your priorities.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
You know, I think I'm going to calm down before I respond to the rest of icarus' post.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yep, you've got me right, saxon.
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
I think I agree with you, Mike. Point of clarification, though:

quote:
Unknowingly harming someone does not, but subsequently finding out and then not apologizing does.
You mean apologizing for having made someone uncomfortable, or apologizing for having prayed? Because I certainly don't think one ever needs to apologize for having prayed. I can see apologizing for having made somebody uncomfortable. But to tell you the truth, I don't think it's necessary in this situation either. If it were me (theoretically) and I found out after the fact that this was someone's--say Paul's--hot button, I would be more inclined to file that knowledge away for future reference. But to bring it up again might make Paul uncomfortable again, and in any case I would hope that he would be charitable, knowing that my intent was not to disrespect, but to encourage and demonstrate my sympathy, and simply blow it off.
 
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Paul,

I'm afraid you're confusing others' prayers for you with your knowledge of them. I could set up a 24 hour prayer vigil for you down here in Tyler Texas (actually, I probably could, since there's a baptist church for every stop sign) but as long as you don't know about about it, it's just a bunch of people praying to a God you don't belive in asking him to do something you don't believe he's going to do. That doesn't harm you. It does, however, have benefit for those who are praying. It strengthens their relationship with God to have contact with him, and it is all they can do to help you.

On the other hand, for them to tell you they are doing this as if you owed them some gratitude for it is really inexcusable considering your beliefs.

I'll trace a woodgrain line for you would have as much meaning.

It is an important distinction, because my prayer is between me and God. My relationship with you is between me and you. It's utterly pointless and possibly harmful for me to expect you to appreciate my woodgrain-line tracing.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
This is a very frustrating topic for me, because I've seen the same themes in prior threads. Mainly the two that have been cited before, the "Happy Christmas" thread and the "Baptism for the Dead" thread.

Any of you who feel that LDS Baptism for the Dead is offensive to you (when applied to you or your loved ones): If you were told that a baptism were to happen, and you respectfully declined, would you then be horrified to discover that they quietly did it behind your back? In their minds, it truly would have no effect on the baptized's religious beliefs during life and would certainly not harm dead.

Constantly, my beliefs are belittled because they do not involve God or Heaven or Hell. For example, in this case many people are insisting that it's rude for me to decline an offer of prayer. Secretly, they're offended that their religion does not match up to my beliefs. And they'll pray for me anyhow.

Telling me to my face that you'll still pray for me is quite disrespectful. Leading me to believe you won't but then praying anyway is still disrespecting my wishes. I am, in a way, a spiritual person. I believe that emotions, actions, and thoughts affect people. And no, it isn't good enough that you have "good intentions." It doesn't work that way for me. Is it not enough that I and other people find hurt in your prayer?
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
I think IdemosthenesI's post answers that point quite nicely. Somebody's private prayers are between them and God. You have no right to insist on what the content of those prayers can be.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Icarus: As long as you have no problem with another religion baptizing you after you're dead, then I think you have complete concordance with your beliefs.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Actually, I do. Its my name thats being brought into another relationship. I can ask that it not be, and if the person refuses, I can tell them they're causing me pain.
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Suneun, I have no objections to it whatsoever.
 
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
That only holds if you believe that relationship to be real. If you believe God does not exist, then you believe the person praying does not truly have a "relationship" while they are praying, they are simply deluding themselves. If prayer is to a God you really do believe in, then by all means, the person praying should respect your wishes in whether ot not they pray for you. If not, it's silly to try to restrict a ritual that has no meaning for you anyway.

Keep in mind, I am still behind you 100% that they shouldn't lord it over you or expect you to be encouraged. I'm gonna have to stand behind their right to pray how they see fit, though.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Well, I guess there isn't really an argument, Icarus, between us because it's really just a difference of worldview.

What I'm most frustrated with are people who view the two as completely separate situations. Their religion means MUCH more than my beliefs.
 
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
 
Paul, I think I understand how you feel to some degree, but I think it's picky enough that you would be causing yourself pain. You might as well tell everyone on the planet to never speak of you or have thoughts of you or anything, regardless of the content. What if I'm praying something like "Gee that Paul is a great guy, and he has a lot to offer someone. I hope he finds a great partner." (I don't know about your marriage status or orientation or anything; it's just for example.) Are you going to be insulted that I thought about you because your name was brought up in my mind?

I realize that there is a big difference between an unwanted prayer and just some conversation or thoughts that someone is having about you. But I think the same effort would have to be put in on your part just to think, worry about, or even police it. You'd just be stressing yourself out.
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Agreed, Suneun.
 
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
quote:
You mean apologizing for having made someone uncomfortable, or apologizing for having prayed? Because I certainly don't think one ever needs to apologize for having prayed.
I can see your point, Ic, but it's all relative. I'm not sure I have the best idea of your particular religious beliefs, but you must think that because in one way or another you are comfortable with the idea of prayer.

Let's look at a different example. My mother's mother is Japanese, was born in Japan and lived there until she got married. My mother's father is Caucasian and was born in Arkansas. My mother doesn't look particularly Asian. One day a customer came into her store (she is the owner and sole employee of a copy, typesetting and office supply store) who was a World War II veteran. He hated all Japanese people and said to my mother (I'm not sure how the conversation came to this) that he thinks all the Japanese should go back to Japan and get the hell out of this country. He didn't realize my mother was half-Japanese; he probably thought she was Native- or Latin-American. Now, really, since this man has no political influence, his belief can't physically harm my mother or any of her family, provided he doesn't assault one of them. But he did unknowingly make her uncomfortable and probably hurt her feelings. Should he apologize for making her uncomfortable, or should he apologize for hating Japanese people?

Some people would say he should apologize for being a racist. Others would say that he's free to believe whatever he wants, so he should only apologize for making her uncomfortable. Still others would say, for whatever reason, that he should do neither.

I don't mean this as an attack on religion, but from a purely logical point of view and in the absence of proof, how can any belief be more than an opinion? And if it's not more than an opinion, albeit a strong and important one (to the holder of the opinion), why should it logically be privileged over other opinions?
 
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
 
Isn't Paul Jewish? Why do people keep saying he doesn't believe in God? He just doesn't believe in your version of it. (Though, he may be an atheist, or in a "non-religious" period in his life right now, I have no idea, but it is a little distracting that people keep saying he doesn't believe in God when I didn't realize it had been established that he didn't.)
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
I'm confused. I don't see the similarity at all.
 
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Jack-
I'm an atheist Jew.
However, this problem probably arises for a number of different people who believe in different gods.People who pray for muslims, or wiccans, or hindus, etc.
 
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
 
Actually, I think Jews and Christians believe in the same God. (Or, maybe Jews don't see it that way. It would be understandable if they didn't.)
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
[DERAIL]

quote:
Mormons always get upset when people say they are not Christian, yes? Well, part of being Christian to me, is recognizing that anyone who says they believe in Jesus Christ as their personal savior is a Christian and is saved. That means that person could be Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, Catholic or undeclared. I recognize you as a brother in faith when you tell me you are a Christian.

I was at the Southern Baptist Convention about 3 years ago. Had a brief chat with a Baptist Minister from Utah. He quoted me the scripture that, in his mind, justified saying that LDS members were NOT his brothers and sisters in Christ (i.e. he believed that they ARE NOT Christians). It was one of the reasons I decided that the Baptist faith was not for me. I realize he could be dead wrong in the eyes of every other Baptist on the planet, but the fact is, he was not. My own favorite minister gave a cogent and heartfelt testimony AGAINST ecumenicalism (ecumenism?) not more than 3 weeks later. In which he basically concluded that everyone who wasn't Baptist was making a grave error, and so a friendly dialog about our shared points of faith was not worth the time.

Sadly, there are many other sects whose leadership think along the same lines. So as much as I'd love to believe that we all consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ, mostly what I've encountered is a lot of "y'all are poor deluded near misses in Christ." And this is especially true among the evangelical denominations (I'm including Baptists, Pentacostals, and a whole slew of small "bible centered" or "bible based" groups out there).

Your church must be different. And that's one great thing about the Baptists. Each church pretty much decides for themselves without any true central control. Unfortunately, that lack of central control means that the truly off-kilter folks like my friendly minister at the SBC have no-one but their own church members to correct them and their mistaken interpretations of scripture.

Or, maybe it's just you who are enlightened. I felt like the only person in my church who didn't think that Baptist was the only true and correct faith and all others were a path to hell. And I'm not kidding either. They talked about it in exactly those terms!!! [Eek!]

[/DERAIL]
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Paul:

quote:
However, this problem probably arises for a number of different people who believe in different gods.People who pray for muslims, or wiccans, or hindus, etc.
Then this is really about religion, and not so much about prayer. You don't want to be condescended to because you don't believe the way others do. And someone praying specifically for you to start believing in God is condescending. You don't want somebody trying to press their religion on you, especially behind your back.

What if you got seriously ill and someone was praying that you could get better? If the person praying had no thoughts about trying to convert you through prayer--just hoping to help you in your need? Is it the fact that they are trying to help, or is it the fact that they're using an overtly religious way of doing it?

I don't think that prayer with that intent is condescending or an attempt to force religion on you. If someone sent you flowers when you were at the hospital, would you refuse them? This is, to some degree, the same intent as a prayer on your behalf.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Here's my rules on this:

1) Someone asks me to pray for them, I always do.

2) Someone asks me NOT to pray for them, I honor their wishes.

3) I think someone needs prayers from me, but I'm not sure of their religious beliefs: I don't ask, and I don't tell them, I just pray. And I don't let them know about it later either. Like if something good happens I don't go up to them and say "well, shoot, of course it did, I put you on the prayer list at my church and we had 50 souls just a'prayin' over your situation!" (note-- actual quote)

I don't see how any of that is wrong. If I pray for Paul without his knowing and before I know that he doesn't want ANYONE to pray for him, then worst case, it's just wasted effort arising from ignorance of his wishes.

Barring certain obvious situations, like a death in the family, I think it is wrong to go up to someone you barely know and INFORM them that you'll be praying for them. Whether they want the prayers or not.

Because:
1) you are assuming you know more about the situation than you really do -- right? I mean if they didn't tell you about it, how did you get your information? Rumor mill, usually. So...

2) You are letting them know that they and their situation have become a topic of "discussion" in the community, and that everyone things its bad, whatever it is.

3) You are also saying that you simply assume they need prayers. Like they couldn't possibly be working on an effective solution themselves.

Face it, most people are intensely private individuals. They don't want to be "talked about." And certainly almost nobody wants pity. If its over a death in the family, you can pretty much assume that social conventions are that you can offer prayers and condolences without a big discussion.

But if it's loss of a job? Or divorce? Or the kids are on crack and selling their bodies on street corners, you'd better know that person really, really well before discussing them in prayer groups...

I know a lot of this can be done anonymously. Perhaps that's better.

But before you try to comfort someone (with an offer of prayer, or a loan, or your shoulder to cry on) I think it's important to know what they want. If you weren't their intimate friend before, the fact that they are facing a tragedy isn't going to make them suddenly want to be your intimate friend now.

Not if they are like most people.

Anyway, that's what I think.

Sorry if I haven't kept up with this thread all along and so have reopened dead arguments. I read through most of the thread though.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If not, it's silly to try to restrict a ritual that has no meaning for you anyway."

*makes voodoo doll of Suneun*
*starts poking it with needles and demanding money*
 
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
The intent and the method are two completely different things. The reason "I'll pray for you" and a bouquet of flowers are so different is that the prayer has a very specific spritual meaning. Not only that, but it carries a weight that "I'll be thinking of you" and other such platitudes just don't have. For religious people, it means that I will intercede to God on your behalf. It is (or should be) a big deal, not just a synonym for "Best wishes."

If I send you flowers, I usually intend to encourage you. But if I insist on praying for you to your face knowing that it won't encourage you, I have done only harm. My prayers don't lose effectiveness if you remain ignorant of them.
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
quote:
1) you are assuming you know more about the situation than you really do -- right? I mean if they didn't tell you about it, how did you get your information? Rumor mill, usually. So...

2) You are letting them know that they and their situation have become a topic of "discussion" in the community, and that everyone things its bad, whatever it is.

Like many here, though, you have made up a scenario that may or may not fit all the facts. What if I am the one who told you about it?

I have had situations where I told a Christian friend my troubles, not because I wanted his or her prayers, but because this person was a friend and I wanted someone to talk to. I have also had situations where I mentioned something I was struggling with in passing, not as a profound unburdening of my soul to somebody I knew well, but as a passing mention of something I was struggling with. And I have had people tell me under both circumstances that they will pray for me. It makes me feel kind of awkward, because I don't share their belief, but they didn't know. They meant well, and I appreciate that, and I'm touched by their sincere gesture. It affects me about as much as receiving flowers or a card does, and I don't spurn it, much like I would not spurn flowers or a card. I don't get who would spurn flowers or a card.

quote:
3) You are also saying that you simply assume they need prayers. Like they couldn't possibly be working on an effective solution themselves.

No. You are saying that you can't think of another way to help. (Or that you can and you are doing both, because you think the prayer will help too. You are displaying your assumption here that prayer is in lieu of something useful.)
 
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Just to clarify, IdemosthenesI, since you posted while I was typing. I am equating prayers to flowers on the recipient's end. And I generally agree with you regarding openly belittling somebody's wishes when you know them.
 
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
bob: seems like the way to go.

Tom: no clue where that came from, really. And reading voodoo doll of Suneun, I had a shiver run down me. And a bit of ill-feeling, actually. Just ask Mike (#55), things affect me very strongly and I become wrapped up in them for days, ruminating.

[ January 30, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
 
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
I think Tom intended to do a voodoo doll of IdemosthenesI, not you Suneun. But you'd better send him some money just in case.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Bob, are you under the impression I'm baptist?

I'm not. I belong to an independent church. And I don't know what our pastor thinks about Mormons, it's never come up.

I don't believe everyone who calls themselves Mormon is saved no more than I believe every person who says they are Catholic are saved. Or methodist, or baptist, or presbyterian.

I believe those who accept Jesus as their personal savior are then saved. I don't believe belonging to a particular denomination is necessary (I don't even think baptism is necessary for salvation).

The Baptist convention can say all it wants to about Mormons, I still believe what I believe. Though, I must admit I agree with the Southern Baptist convention more times than not.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Icarus:

quote:
Like many here, though, you have made up a scenario that may or may not fit all the facts. What if I am the one who told you about it?

quote:
1) Someone asks me to pray for them, I always do.

2) Someone asks me NOT to pray for them, I honor their wishes.

3) I think someone needs prayers from me, but I'm not sure of their religious beliefs: I don't ask, and I don't tell them, I just pray.

I think this pretty much covers it. If you tell me your problem and I think you are worth praying for, I'll certainly do it unless you ask me not to. If I know you don't like that kind of thing, I wont do it. If I don't know, I wont tell you and I won't ask. I think it's presumptuous.

I mean, if someone tells me something that I think is completely prayer-worthy, I might ask them IF they are a praying person, or if they would MIND if I prayed about it.

I find that people who don't pray, by the way, are almost ALWAYS offended if you say things like "I will pray FOR you." But if you ask if you can pray ABOUT the situation, it usually isn't a big deal."

I don't think it's all that hard to be sensitive to the comfort-level of others on this score.

And I think just blurting out "I will pray FOR you" is bound to be viewed as insensitive at some point by some people, even those who are religious.

Maybe it sounds like a bunch of semantics. But I think it's just trying to be polite.
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
To clarify: I meant that my intent in telling you that I would keep you in my prayers would be much the same intent as giving you flowers.

However, in practice, while I would hope that flowers would brighten your day a little, I wouldn't expect them to help you actually get better. But I would actually pray that you might have help getting better, and I would actually believe that the prayer might be beneficial to you.

One big distinction I am trying to bring out, that keeps getting muddled in this thread, is that a prayer on your behalf does not have to be an attempt to convert you. That it could be a gesture of support, and at the same time an attempt to help you in your need.
 
Posted by jana at jade house (Member # 6101) on :
 
Sorry for adding my honest comments. I did not write with rudesness in my heart, but just as some people here would construe unasked for prayer as rudeness, the distinct lack of gratitude for a simple act of kindness was to my mind also impolite.

I am sorry you did not understand this point: my four footed member of the family has no ideas of the intent of a blond dog, but barks any way, so do you have no feeling for the intent of the proffered prayer, and you bark too. I never meant that you were a canine in any respect, but that in the absence of knowledge of intent you protest away. My apologies. Our animals are anthropomorphized in every respect around here.

My point was that I am by nature a prayer and you are not. You cannot prevent me from acting within my nature.

I wonder if my athiest husband is so insulted every time our family gathers for family prayer...hmmmm.

By the way I never intimated you were friendless, but for a segment of the population, you would certainly be a difficult friend to have.

Jana
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I wonder if my athiest husband is so insulted every time our family gathers for family prayer...hmmmm"

Probably not. But if you told him, when you went to prayer, that you were praying for him, he might well be.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Backing up a bit because i had to go find a reference --

Pooka, it was katharina who posted the wording, and somehow I find it hard to believe one would doubt her credentials in the LDS church (I'm not qualified to judge, myself, but she's always struck me as a very devout person).

to quote her:
quote:
For a living person:

"Having been commisioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, [name], in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

For proxy for someone dead.

"Having been commisioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, [name], for and in behalf of [name], in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

A question, if someone wishes to answer: in the baptism for the living does the one being baptized say amen? If so, I don't find the "needing to respond with amen makes it optional" idea particularly convincing as an argument. It doesn't seem to be the case in this description of the ceremony: http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/respri2.htm (I don't know how authoritative that source is, but they certainly seem to have done their research; its a professor's research site at UU and they cite their references).

Its not the offering of the baptism that offends me at all; its that the ritual as described in brief isn't offering the baptism but asserting it regardless of someone's wishes. I believe LDS members when they tell me that it is only intended to be an offering, to which I would suggest that then the ritual should be one of offering.

I dislike continuing things such as that discussion, and I'm certain its going to end in an agree to disagree situation, but I also strongly dislike when someone doesn't understand what I mean; I always feel as if it has been a failure on my part to explain.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Belle,

I don't know how I came to the conclusion that you were Baptist, but yes, I was sure you are/were.

Sorry.

Anyway, I applaud your view on it.

Sorry about the diatribe about the SBC. I have to say that that "convention" was the beginning of the end for me and the Baptist Church. After that, I saw the whole thing in a far different light.

I still admire many Baptists.
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
I'm not so sure I like being referred to as "Mike (#55)".

-Mike (the atheist/agnostic Jew who doesn't mind being prayed for)
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Fugu:

Look at the wording. The person being spoken to is the proxy being physically dunked. What you're talking about, adding an "if the person really wants it, but this isn't binding unless they do" is meta-data - like it's an aside that should be said sotto voce. It's also unnecesary meta-data, because it only "takes", for the living or dead, if a heart is changed.

[ January 30, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
 
Michael Savage (#55), is that you?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
quote:
for and in behalf of
That's not metadata.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Fugu, the words come from prophets. They weren't written by committee. If you want them changed, you can go to the source. [Smile] <-- smiley face to indicate good will
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Like I said, I think we'll end up agreeing to disagree. But "for and in behalf of" directly contradicts the notion that its an offering.

[ January 30, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
"I got this for you."

"I don't want it."

"Okay."
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
quote:
1) Someone asks me to pray for them, I always do.

Bobby -- you can pray for ME -- I don't mind [Wink]

Even if we disagree on many other items of scripture, at least we agree on this point.

FG
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Were it just the for, I'd likely be okay. And behalf has too meanings, one of which would be identical to for in this context, and the other of which would mean acting as an agent of . . .

I suppose I could just think the LDS prophets are overly verbose. Better to give the benefit of the doubt. There we go. I'm no more offended by the idea than I am by prayers on my behalf, now (which isn't very).
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Is this another case where we'd all like the Lord to employ a good tech writer?

Hey Tom, where's that power point version of the Bible?
 
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
Ic, I wasn't really trying to equate spirituality with racism. You asked whether the person in question should apologize for offering the prayer or for making the person uncomfortable. Then you said that you didn't think a person should ever have to apologize for praying. My question was: if a belief cannot logically be distinguished from an opinion, under what circumstances should a person apologize for holding an opinion? I offered two instances of one person doing something, based on a belief or opinion, that offended another person. In either circumstance, should the offender apologize to the offendee for his action or the result or both? If the answers are different in the two cases, why? Does it depend on the subject of the belief? Or is it because of motivation?
 
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
How about a different example, one that doesn't have as negative a motivation as my first one? A woman begins working in a new office. One of her male co-workers constantly makes jokes of a sexual nature, some of which are explicit, many of which are chauvenist. She knows he's not trying to be rude; he's just treating her like he treats everyone else. "Everyone else" is mostly male, but there are a few other women in the group, and none of them seem to mind. Some of them even actively participate. But it really bothers this new woman. It offends her and makes her uncomfortable in her work environment.

Should the guy apologize and knock it off? Should the woman just accept that it's not meant in a bad way and get over it?

This type of scenario is exactly the kind of thing they teach you about in sexual harassment classes. Of course, having a random stranger offend you once and having a close co-worker offend you five days a week are not the same, but are the cases fundamentally different, or only in degree?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Personally I would expect that the Lord High God would have a pretty decent way with words -- but as I've explained before, this would mean to me being powerful in their simplicity rather than their verbosity.

I would certainly expect Him not to say "the rock was huge, gigantic, large, and big" or similar.

Probably one of the biggest reasons to me (not in terms of what the importance "should" be to me, but in terms of how I am and always will be) I will never be LDS is that the scripture just isn't very appealing to me textually.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm still working on it. I've gotten this far:
code:
CREATION OF EARTH
Tasked to: God

I. DAY ZERO
1) Heaven
2) Earth
i. without form
ii. void
iii. darkness on face of deep
a. Spirit of God

II. DAY ONE
1) Light (Day)
i. good
ii. divided from darkness (Night)

III. DAY TWO
1) Firmament (Heaven)
i. dividing waters, vertical

IV. DAY THREE
1) Dry Land (Earth)
i. waters gathered (Seas)
ii. good
2) Earth bring forth:
i. grass
a. seed
3. tree
4. seed (recursive)
ii. good

V. DAY FOUR
1) Lights in firmament
i. Lesser Light (Moon)
a. signs
b. seasons
c. rule the Night
d. give Light upon the Earth
ii. Greater Light (Sun)
a. signs
b. days
c. years
d. rule the Day
e. give Light upon the Earth
iii. Additional Lights (inc. Stars)
iv. good

VI. DAY FIVE
1. Waters bring forth Creatures
i. moving creature
a. has Life
ii. fowl
a. can fly in Heaven
iii. whales
2. Creatures blessed
i. fruitful
ii. multiply
a. Seas to be filled
b. fowl in particular
iii. good

VII. DAY SIX
1. Earth brings forth Creatures
i. cattle
ii. creeping thing
iii. miscellaneous beasts
iv. good
2. Man created
i. Likeness of God
ii. male
iii. female
3. Man blessed
i. fruitful
ii. multiply
iii. replenish Earth
iv. subdue Earth
v. dominion
a. fish
b. fowl
c. moving living things on Earth
4. Meat Substitutes
i. For Man
a. herb-bearing seeds
b. trees w/tree-yielding seeds
ii. For living beasts, fowl, creeping things
a. green herbs

5. Review and Inspection
i. Good

VIII. DAY SEVEN
1. Rest
2. Sanctify day of rest



[ January 30, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
<takes off Mormon hat, puts on Katie hat>

You don't see a problem with deciding God doesn't live up to your standards?

"If God exists, he would be like this." That doesn't seem odd to you?

----------------------------------

Tom: Heh. I knew I liked you.

[ January 30, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Does your Katie hat have a four-leaf clover in it?

I have to beat myself everyday to remember that God is who he is, and it's totally pointless for me to try and resist that. It's like those people who sat around with their sunglasses on watching the A-bombs go off. It's like putting your hand up to stop a speeding train.
 
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
quote:
Michael Savage (#55), is that you?
I don't think so. I could change my name, though. [Razz]

Wait a second, this doesn't have anything to do with prayer. *shuts up now*
 
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Sorry, I get all those Jewish people named Mike confused. [Wink]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
My Katie hat
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Its either that or revelation, and I don't acknowledge the existence of revelation. If we are unable to discriminate about God on any earthly (such as, reasoned and personal) basis, we are unable to discriminate about God at all except by revelation (which, as previously mentioned, I don't consider to exist).

'sides, don't you believe that God has to follow universal laws? In which case it would certainly be possible to evaluate God.
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
quote:
Hey Tom, where's that power point version of the Bible?
A PowerPoint Bible? Is nothing sacred? [Angst]
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Just for the record, since it was brought up in my now dead, deleted thread, I think, as an expression of good will, saying 'I will pray for you' is perfectly dandy. Given the very small number of people who actually take the time to give a rat's ass about anything, I'm personally amazed when anyone says anything like that to me.

There are about a gazillion people who do, in fact, want to do harm to others or who just don't give a damn. Is it an 'empty' gesture? Maybe. But so is saying 'Good morning' or 'Have a nice day'. In the material world it does nothing, but in the social world of words and ideas that people also inhabit, I think sentiments like 'I will pray for you' can only do good by greasing the skids of life to make it easier for us all to get by.

All of this has been said before. I just wanted to make sure my position on this highly important matter was clear.

Have a great day, y'all. [Hat]
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Just curious, Fugu: Why don't you acknowledge the existence of revelation? I don't know if you've explained this before, so please bear with me.

[ January 30, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
I don't acknowledge the existence of revelation.
See, we're back to you deciding to make the rules that God ought to follow. You don't see a problem with that?

Or, listen to Jon Boy.

[ January 30, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Also, note I said I couldn't believe in. Not that such a God couldn't exist. Clearly people believing in something doesn't mean it exists (that resulting in many mutually contradicting things being true). Similarly, not believing in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Katie, did you see my last post?

BTW, I like the Katie hat. What does your Mormon hat look like? [Wink]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So, how did you decide that revelation doesn't exist?

Edited for content.

[ January 30, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Its quite simple, really. I don't believe in anything being out there to give revelation [Smile] . As for the various supporting evidence for it, I'm fairly familiar with a large number of belief systems and human psychology. People consistently have very powerful experiences, and are clearly not capable (this is going to get some disagreement) of distinguishing a real revelation from a false one even if there were revelations. Which leads me to strongly suspect that if a god were to exist he wouldn't use such a silly way to get people to believe.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Olivia, which one? In here? *looks around wildly*

My Mormon hat

[ January 30, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
What epiphany? Why does one need epiphany to believe something? I see little connection.

And I see no problem with restricting what sorts of God I could believe in (or respect, if given absolute proof of said God's existence ('cause it isn't belief then)). Its not theoretically troubling, as its just statements about what I am prepared to accept, and its not practically troubling, because I can prove its existence by example [Big Grin] .
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
So what way would he use to convince people to believe? I mean, if physically coming to earth and showing himself to people is out, then what indubitable method is left?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
He's omnipotent (in this case used in the limited sense), let him figure it out. Stop trying to place limits on God [Razz] .

But more seriously, there are several answers to that question. One quite common one (among Christians, among others) is that he doesn't. That part of the point is that its a matter of faith without absolute proof. A supporting idea is that if thats the method of distributing of the truth, why do only the people who've already heard the message get the revelation (with typically one exception for each religion, the originator of that religion)? Does God only take yes/no questions so you have to know what to ask, first?

Another is, of course, that there isn't a God, which is what I tend towards. I would never say I believe there isn't a God, because I don't. I would say there is no God I can believe in -- quite different.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Also, I never said he couldn't physically come to earth. I said I didn't acknowledge the existence of revelation. The two are not equal.
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(Bobby? *wild grin)
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
It has been revealed to me that it's okay for fugu to not believe in revelation.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
saxon, I think the second part of my post answered your question.



Tom, I think the PowerPoint bible is amusing, especially Day Three. [Big Grin] One nitpick: there was no day zero.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
quote:
I have to beat myself everyday to remember that God is who he is, and it's totally pointless for me to try and resist that. It's like those people who sat around with their sunglasses on watching the A-bombs go off. It's like putting your hand up to stop a speeding train.
PSI...those are the two weirdest similies describing God that I have ever seen.

It's like you expect God to obliterate you at any moment!!! [Eek!]

I have it on good authority that your obliteration is scheduled for a long time from now.
 
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
LOL Bob. I thought of that too. I actually picked speeding train over comet-hurdling-towards-earth for that reason.

I'm sure you realize that my analogies were supposed to illustrate the unstoppable force of God Almighty. Not necessarily the destructive power, although I'm sure that's pretty impressive, too.

I just remember seeing those people during Operation Ivy, sitting on a hill watching the bombs go off less than a mile away, with their pitiful little sunglasses on, like that would do anything. I heard they used to say that if a nuke went off while you were in school, to get under your desk. o_O
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Duck and Cover!

We had to watch a film on it.

And these are the instructions:

WHEN YOU SEE THE FLASH...

Duck and Cover.

Uh huh.
 
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
(CT-I caught that, too. *snicker*)

I have nothing on-topic to say. So there. [Smile]
 
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
WHEN YOU SEE THE FLASH.....

I HOPE YOU KISSED YOUR EYEBALLS GOODBYE.

(Go ahead. Just try it.)

[ January 30, 2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Some of the early test subject turned their backs and put their hands over their eyes, and they could see the bones in their hands anyway. I'm guessing they were too close. So is there a drawback to getting too close to God, analogously?
 
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
For your spiritual development probably not, but your interactions with other humans might deteriorate.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Again, here's the thing that I really don't think people are getting. *ahem* YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL PAUL WHAT HE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE OFFENDED BY.

That's what the dicussion has come down to. Paople saying, "Oh, well I don't think you should be offended by that, so it's ok that they pray for you against your wishes." Dictating to another person what they should or shouldn't think and claiming that you know better than they do for themselves is completely disrespectful of them. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it's still always disrespectful.

Two personal analogies.

1) I'm a very tactile person. I love to touch and feel things, especially people. I give excellent massages, especially when I'm nervous, because they calm me down. I'm the guy that people routinely think is dating some of my female friends, because we're always touching each other. I can honestly say, I'm uncomfortable in situations when I can't have physical contact with people I care about or are interested in.

I don't see why people in our culture are so against physcial contact. I think that communicating without physicality is limiting and leads to less caring and empathy. Also, when I touch people, I'm doing for their own good and I don't think that you could claim I'm hurting them in any way. And yet, I don't go around touching everyone I know. No one here is going to argue that I should be allowed to do so or is going to side with me if I get offended when someone tells me not to touch them after I do. Explain to me the difference between those situations.

2) I hate greeting cards nearly as much as I love touching. I think that they symbolize a disconnect in a relationship. It's sort of like, "I don't know how to express to you how I feel about you or it's too much trouble to try, so here's a pre-packaged, factory created approximation." To me, giving someone a greeting card is me saying that I don't really care about them.

I make no bones about telling other people this, and yet they usually seem to send me greeting cards. I'll tell them I don't want them, that they make me doubt the strength of our relationship, but they send them anyway. No doubt, they think that they are doing a good thing for me. However, for me, each card I get is a symbol that they don't really care about the real me, that the social construction of what you're supposed to do is more important to them than what I actually want. For someone who links love strongly to understanding, each card saying they love me is actually saying the exact opposite.

Again, how is that situation different from Paul's with the prayer?
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2