There isn't anything wrong with asking questions, it's just not that hard to figure out that you're looking for a specific answer that you weren't getting here. After all, you got a half dozen answers to your initial questions, but since you kept repeating your questions I think people realized you probably had an agenda in asking them beyond just wanting to know what people thought.

Okay. What if offering to pray for others also comforts those others? Do you still think it is selfish?

Because it tells me how to find out what something means: look at what the people saying it think it means.

EDIT: Also, you claimed that prayer for victims seems "contradictory or meaningless." But here you only argue that it is selfish. I wanted to see your argument for the claim that it was contradictory or meaningless.

EDIT2: Also, obviously lots of religious people disagree with your claim that you can't change god's mind, so there's that...

We don't know if it will help at all but it might, and it can't hurt to try, right? And it is a nice expression of goodwill, right? Other people aren't as analytical as you, lol.

Meh. There's a philosophically sound school of thought that suggests altruism is selfishness through rose-colored glasses.

Is such a concept that terrible to consider?

Not terrible to consider, just false.

I know. I eyerolled that one. If people want to try to preach self-containment and justify it, who are we to take the time to bother?

sure. You can pull the sort of "all charity and helping others is just to make you feel better and get future favours back" kind of card. But if that is what mightyboosh wants to argue, he shouldn't single out a religious person offering empathy through the language of their religion as a special case to condemn as selfishness.

It's a common case cite though.

And easily referenced, and it's easy to ruffle feathers with it.

I wouldn't restrict it entirely to those two choices, but otherwise, yes I did. I was tired of being accused of masking a position I don't really have and decided to take one to advance the discussion.

The specific answer that I was looking for was the argument that shows why there is a point to praying that goes beyond simply comforting the relatives of victims, beyond something that could be easily achieved without resort to 'prayer'. I also want to understand what the people doing the prayer think they're achieving above and beyond providing comfort, such that prayer is necessary and they couldn't simply have said 'You have my sympathies' or similar.

I think I made this clear, I'm skeptical about prayer, I suspect ulterior motives and/or that it is simply a platitude, I'm not masking anything, nor do I have an agenda beyond wanting to understand the other point of view.

Yes, no, it depends, but why mention prayer, why not say something else that would be comforting? We know that this it's possible to give comfort without bringing god into it. So it seems that the specific mention of 'prayer' is adding something and I'd like to understand what that thing is.

But it isn't actually saying what people think it means. So it's not Useful to simply know that it means something to some people, I want to know what it means so I can examine that meaning.

Post #3

I think they're all wrong. What argument do they have to show me why I'm wrong about that?

How could it help?

'Nice' is subjective. I don't think it's nice, I actually find it quite disturbing.

Two points.

1) Why should a religious person default to a secular way of saying "You have my sympathies?" Surely for a religious person using religious language to say something, even if it could be said in non-religious language, is in general fine.

2) One of the functions of religion is to provide people with hope and meaning in the face of tragedy. Maybe this is by thinking that the people involved live on in heaven, or by thinking that there is a benevolent deity in control of everything, and so on. Or it could be that giving a structure to the grieving process in various religious rituals (eg the Mourner's Kaddish) helps people move on with their lives afterward. In part, for many people religion is one of the things that gives meaning and purpose for their lives.

Telling someone that you'll pray for them can remind them of these things, and so be more emotionally uplifting than merely saying that they have your sympathy. So I'm not sure that these are completely interchangeable statements anyway.
You clearly do have an agenda in this thread. You ask what people think it means to say "I'm praying for you" in response to tragedy. You keep pressing for a different answer even after people tell you what they think. You try to quash side discussions. I'm not saying it is wrong to have an agenda, just that you were looking for a specific answer that you wanted to criticize.

This is poor logic. Just as I'm not really adding anything to the meaning of an exclamation of surprise when I say "Oh my god!" rather than "I'm surprised," using religious language doesn't have to bring any more explicit meaning to a statement of sympathy.

But fundamentally, my disagreement with you is that I don't think that people need to justify their use of language in the way you seem to be presupposing here. If someone is religious and thinks about the world in religious terms, then I see no problem with them using religious language even to talk about non-religious things.

For instance, let's say I'm walking in the woods with a religious friend who says something about the beauty of God's creation. Should it bother me that she said "God's creation" when she could just as easily said the "Nature" or some other non-religious term? Why?

Not sure I understand this.

That the Bible shows clear examples of God changing his mind in response to prayers.

Has prayer been studied to determine if it can reduce fear and anxiety in response to terrifying events?

Google: scholar prayer mass trauma

A fair bit I'd say.

They shouldn't if they don't want to, but if they reference a specific religious practice, and we assume that it's not simply a figure of speech for them, then they have a reason for doing so, something that makes doing that better than not doing it. What is that reason wrt to prayer?

I could argue with the assertion that this is a 'function' of religion but I'm not going to right now because I think that when people say 'I'll pray for you' they mean more than just to remind people of something that makes them feel comforted, although that might be a byproduct of it being said, I don't believe it's the primary intention because once again, they could achieve this by saying something completely different like 'have faith in god', 'trust your faith' or whatever. They could invoke god without mentioning a very specific religious practice.


I don't think that I've heard a good explanation yet and I'm pressing for one. Everything I've heard so far could be summed up as 'because they think it helps, probably' but I've yet to see an explanation for how it helps that justifies specific mention of prayer and not some alternative.


I feel that I've already dealt with your 'oh my god' comparison, that it's inaccurate and I'm not sure why you've gone back to that. 'I'll pray for you' is not a figure of speech and not an exclamation, it's a statement of intent. Even those saying it surely wouldn't agree that they didn't really mean it?


For her it's an explanation, again, not a statement of some intent. Do you consider 'oh my god', 'god's creation' and 'I'll pray for you' to be equivalent?

Simply that 'it means something them' isn't a useful explanation. I haven't learned anything about why it means something to them, or what it means, and that's what I'm after.


There are views that "The Scriptures that are interpreted as God seeming to change His mind are human attempts to explain the actions of God", and other passages that state explicitly that 'god doesn't change' so this isn't immediately persuasive to me. In any case, you have cited a source that is known to be inaccurate as well as contradictory, and for many, is not taken literally anyway.

It doesn't seem logical that god could or would change his mind. In a universe where God is omniscient, there cannot logically also be a reason for him to change his mind. Maybe. I'd like to explore that and it was part of my reason for starting this thread.

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

I don't really want to spend time, or pollute the thread with discussion about discussions, but I'll say this;

I've objected to side discussions that are completely irrelevant to the OP, such as why tabloids are what they are, gun legislation issues, or whether or not prayer is being politicized by liberal pundits, which began within a few posts of my OP. Two are complete changes of subject, the other is barely even tangential having only the word 'prayer' in common with the OP. I consider it inconsiderately off-topic at best, and thread hijacking/derailing at worst. Threads aren't a free for all, there's an etiquette and I think it's being ignored ITT. In point of fact, you were the first to do it in post #7 where you even admit that what you're saying "isn't directly relevant to Mightyboosh's question" (it's actually a completely different subject) and set an example which was promptly followed.

This thread hasn't been a free for all. It has followed a natural progression of topics and conversations (excepting a short tangent that was shut down in #32).

Something doesn't have to be "directly relevant" to the OP to be worth posting. That's never been how things work in here or virtually any other public discussion forum.

Your initial questions were these:

(1) Never mind whether or not prayer can be shown to work (AFAIK it can't), does it even make logical sense?

(2) When people 'pray for victims', what exactly are they doing and what do they hope to achieve?

(3) Is it anything more than a platitude?

The first is one that has been discussed at length in many threads. It's not a novel question.

The second has an obvious answer. They are saying they're going to pray for the victims because they're intending to pray for the victims. And they're conveying sympathy and trying to give support.

The third has a similarly obvious answer. It's more than just platitude if people hearing it actually feel a sense of support from the words. If it means something to those people and causes an emotional reaction in them, it's not empty.

The real problem is that you have an agenda and you can't admit it to yourself. You have repeated demonstrations of what amounts completely irrational accusations and arguments that you have put forth to support your negative view of religion. Most of those have failed quite miserably.

You can keep playing the "I'm the victim" card, but it appears to elicit no sympathy from anyone here.

"I'll buy you a drink" means "I'll buy you a drink."

"I'll walk to work" means "I'll walk to work."

"I'll pray for you" means "I'll pray for you."

What's so complicated about this? Why is it so hard for you to understand the intention of the statement?

This seems exactly right. My guess here is that Mightyboosh doesn't really object to organic tangents occurring generally - these are fine and he likely has gone on many such tangents himself - but that he is objecting when the thread doesn't go the way he wants it to.

If you say so. It feels like "religious people saying they are praying are selfish, and perhaps a few other choices" is a view you have been circling around for most of this thread, that it is a view you DO really have, and that you are just now "unmasking" it.

The view is so clearly wrong - expression of empathy from religious people we would expect would be made in a religious context - I don't really know what else to say.

Oops I missed this. I'll repeat my point here:

I believe you are completely and utterly wrong on this issue. As I have described, I think organic tangents in threads are a GOOD thing and a sign of a healthy and engaged forum. I don't believe that a few people going on a tangent in any way prevents other people from talking about whatever they want either. People should follow whatever they are interested in...and in so doing they come back to threads with other discussions and might get interested in those too! This can build to very successful threads with thousands of posts and all sorts of interweaving sub conversations throughout and many of my favourite discussions on this forum and others coming precisely from bizarre tangents that pick up interest....sometimes I'm arguing multiple different tangents with multiple different people all at the same time! A strict regimented view that one can only have the conversation implied by the OP until such time as that conversation is over and done with isn't just wrong, but stifling and would - if followed - inhibit the free flow of conversation. It would make forums worse.

In this specific case, it is EXPECTED that if you use a clearly controversial cover - it was trending internationally on social media - that people are going to discuss that controversial cover and not JUST the exact discussion you want to have. It is a complete natural and indeed expected tangent based on the content of your OP. This isn't trying to take your conversation away from you, you can - and are! - having that discussion. But having multiple interesting things to talk about in a thread is a good thing!

Your accusations of it being rude, selfish, and bad ettiquete are thus all things I categorically reject. Further, I think it is YOU who is being rude. You do not get to dictate what others talk about. You do not get to shut down other people have a conversation they are interested in it, just because it isn't the one you are interested in.

I'm pretty sure this question has been answered. For instance:

So, what it means, literally, is that they will or have or are praying for them. Presumably that isn't a mystery to you (that is, you know what it means for someone to pray, yes?). The reason they are saying that they are praying for them is some combination of the reasons referenced above. I don't get what you find so confusing about this.

Who cares if they could say it in some different way? You can say the same thing in many ways, that doesn't mean there has to be a special reason why you are saying it the way you are.

Justification, as I've said earlier, is not the right framework. You don't need to justify the language you use to communicate a thought or emotion as long as the thought or emotion is communicated.

Yes, but you've been asking about why they use religious rather than non-religoius language to convey their sympathy. I'm giving an example where the use of religious language to convey something that could be just as easily be conveyed with non-religious language doesn't need to be justified.

If you want to have a thread about how intercessory prayer doesn't make sense, fine. However, your OP here asked for an explanation of what people mean by they say they'll pray for the victims of a tragedy. It is pretty rich when you complain that people aren't answering your question because they aren't convincing you that intercessory prayer makes sense.

You asked what people meant. It is of course entirely possible that people mean to say something that doesn't at the end of the day fully cohere with their other beliefs. That doesn't mean that it isn't what they meant when they said it.

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

Nope, that isn't how RGT works. I'll allow side discussions and derailments here if they are worthwhile, even if the OP objects. Yes, people should be respectful of the OP, and I think we have been as the subject you wanted to discuss has continued along with the side-discussions. And yes, the side-discussions should develop organically out of the original discussion--which was also the case here as they were of the provocative headline you used in your OP.

You don't use "Jesus Christ" or "Oh my God" as an exclamation, because you think it provides free marketing for Christianity, which it needs to survive.

Am I the only one that finds that utterly hilarious?

Btw, québécois profanity takes the cake on using religious terms. Tabarnak!

I'm a member of a fans forum for a specific football team. The forum has been around for 15 years it has about 50 regulars in the non football forum with about the same number of occasional posters from the football forum.

There have been numerous heated though normally respectful discussions over religion in the last 15 years, we have a relatively high number of Muslim posters some Christians of various denominations and a couple of Jewish posters, the largest single group would be atheists. Given the small numbers and the length of time people have been posting most regs know the religious affiliations of the others.

There have been numerous threads reporting a loss or some news that is a cause for concern. Members families dying, receiving news of some illness and other assorted personal stories. I tended to offer my sympathies in accordance with the affiliation of the reporting member, if they were theist that they are in my prayers, if an atheist in my thoughts. Not everyone would distinguish but in all my time there, not once not ever has there been any push back on someone offering prayers for someone not of the same religious affiliation. There is a tendency though for people to offer sympathy in line with their own beliefs so atheists generally wouldn't use prayers but thoughts.

However when a death is reported, whether it is the death of a loved one or some relevant celebrity or in relation to some tragedy, pretty much everyone replies with a Rest In Peace. This clearly has religious connotations, the atheists certainly don't think that there is anyone resting when they are dead but using this phrase seems entirely uncontroversial.

Slightly dimmed flame next to Newfs wtf did we just talk about ****.

But, yeah.

Now I wanna loop Q-city before going thru Loup. Dunno. Might never get out.

/digress.

Wrt to the bolded, no I haven't, and this may go some way towards explaining your answers. I've specifically asked why people promise to 'pray', to engage in a very specific religious behavior and perform this behavior. This is not at all the same as 'generally use religious language'.

It almost seems that there's an assumption on your part that when people offer to pray, it's just an unthinking platitude, that they have no intention of actually doing it. I've been giving them more credit than that by assuming that they will actually pray, and I'm asking what do they hope to achieve by doing that (.e.g. are they trying to change god's mind?). During that prayer, they are not talking to the person they're praying for, they're talking to god. Presumably they hope to achieve something by doing this. What is it?


My disagreement that my questions have been answered is due to that fact that I'm not asking how it makes people feel, I'm asking why the person offering to pray would actually perform the prayer. I also asked questions in the OP that haven't really been touched on, e.g.

Does it even make logical sense? (This I'm the most interested in exploring but you're really the only person who's engaged with it at all and you didn't respond to my last comments on this issue)

When people 'pray for victims', what exactly are they doing ?

Is it anything more than a platitude?



I wouldn't, within a few posts of an OP about the purpose of prayer in a tragedy, start a side conversation about gun control or why tabloids do what they do, just because seeing the front cover of a tabloid made me think of those things. I wouldn't do it IRL either. I clearly have a different personal etiquette and given that when I first posted here I was infracted for 'repeated off-topic posting', and apparently the difference between what I did and this is how you deem something 'worthwhile', or not, I'm somewhat unclear now about what is 'off-topic' in a bad way, and in a 'worthwhile' way.

No you don't generally do it because you think that, I wouldn't disagree, luckily I never said that so it's a straw man.

What I did say was that when people use religious vernacular, they are inadvertently promoting a religion in the same manner that people who call vacuum cleaners 'Hoovers' promote that brand. I'm sure that's not their intention though, it's just a huge branding win for Hoover.

I don't know.