posted
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.
Posts: 188 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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?
posted
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 ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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?
posted
You're being remarkably rude, jana. Paul has done nothing to warrant being called an ungreatful, friendless dog, for Pete's sake.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.”
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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."
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. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
