Questions about Christianity?

I am a Christian and I want to share my religion with anyone who wants to know. There is so much proof that Christianity is correct. I would be more than happy to answer your questions. I would love to pray for you and anything that you would want Gods hand to heal. Thanks and I hope I get people to follow my group. I will try to answer questions as soon as i can.
Questions: What is your favorite book?

Why you and not some other teacher? Which Christianity? Or are all Christianities correct? Correct about what? and to what extent? Literally?

Robert

Is anyone a Christian who says he (or she) is?

Is there something a person has to be or do or believe to be the genuine article?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a true Christian?

What is your warrant for deeming yourself "a Christian" ?

You talk about praying for God's hand to heal "anything we would want him to".

Do you believe God would , or just might, change facts on the ground that would have been otherwise had we not asked ?

>1 -jamiehorton-:: It's hard to say what my favorite book is. Since I presume that you are talking about Christian books, I'd throw out a couple that come pretty highly on my list:
Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works
Confessions by St. Augustine
Scivias by Hildegard of Bingen
Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich

Overall, my favourite book has to be Lord of the Rings by Tolkien. Amongst Christian books, Awareness by Anthony de Mello is one of my favourites. Also The Universe Story and The Dream of the Earth by Thomas Berry.

>4 nathanielcampbell:

So, not so much the recent stuff? ;)

>6 timspalding: I was also trying to find an old book which I love, by Aelred of Rivaux (spelling?) on spiritual friendship but can't find it at this moment.

(Removed. Fish in a barrel. Too easy.)

>6 timspalding: and 9: Yeah, I like old books. (C. S. Lewis makes a great argument for the reading of old books in his Introduction to Athanasius' On the Incarnation).

And John, I think you meant Spiritual Friendship by Aelred of Rievaulx -- a great book by one of the early Cistercians (even if has given modern scholars cause to debate the man's sexual orientation -- for a good summary of his life, see Brother and Lover: Aelred of Rievaulx by Brian Patrick McGuire).

>11 nathanielcampbell: That's the one! Thanks!

I tend to find that Christian books by authors who are long dead tend to have much more meat and much less froth in them.

My literary diet forbids dishes containing both meat and froth.

>11 nathanielcampbell:

Thanks. I haven't read that. I'll check it out.

yep, check out that religion

modalursine to answer your questions,

You can never really tell if anyone is a true Christian, but the Bible says to be "fruit in spectors." There will be evidence that someone is a true Christian as expressed by there actions. Jesus said a summary of the ten commandments love thy God above all things and love thy neighbor as thyself. Its a possibility if there actions reflect these two behaviors.

Jesus Christ is God and the Savior of Mankind. But it cant be just a "head-belief". It has to be a "heart" belief where you love Jesus so much for dying on the cross for your sins so that you can go to heaven that you WILL WANT to obey His Word on how to live your life. All the instructions on how to live life are contained in Gods Manual which is the Holy Bible. Which is all God guided.

From the Bible:
You have to abide in Christ, Believing He is Gods son. It means recieving Him as Savior and Lord, and doing what God says. To become a Christian you have to say a prayer to God and truly mean it. You can say your own prayer which is saying basically that you know you have sinned and that you want God to forgive you and that you want to live on His word and you want to go to Heaven with Him when you die.

The sinner's prayer must come from your heart and we hope this will help you to invite Jesus into yours. This prayer is here only as a guide. We urge you to pour out your heart to Jesus in your own words.

"Heavenly Father, have mercy on me, a sinner. I believe in you and that your word is true. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that he died on the cross so that I may now have forgiveness for my sins and eternal life. I know that without you in my heart my life is meaningless.
I believe in my heart that you, Lord God, raised Him from the dead. Please Jesus forgive me, for every sin I have ever committed or done in my heart, please Lord Jesus forgive me and come into my heart as my personal Lord and Savior today. I need you to be my Father and my friend.

I give you my life and ask you to take full control from this moment on; I pray this in the name of Jesus Christ."

Amen.

I deemed myself as a Christian because I am truly a Christian. I know i am. I have prayed to God and asked Him to be my Savior. I strive for Him and I have accepted Him into my life. Thats why, and you can to.

When you pray for something or ask God for something you wont always get what you prayed for, but God will decide whats best. He is not Santa Clause in other words. We have to trust that the decision he makes for our good.

Thanks for all your questions and I hope this helps. :)

John 3:16 -

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that who so ever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

ive read a 2 books in the last week, they were good. Cracker by Cynthia Kadohata and A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'engle. I have read almost the whole series of Left Behind and it is amazing I encourage you to read the series. It is amazing and will help you grow and learn about God.

I can hardly think of a series of books both more poorly written and disparaging of God (and the intelligence of His followers) than the Left Behind novels. I read the first - it was hard to get through.

However I am permanently in the middle of CS Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet series. So far it's good fiction that excites the imagination in Christ.

why didnt you like left behind series?

Because it was just a drag. Poor written. Characters were like cardboard. Dialogue stilted and plastic. Christianity is deep enough to inspire much more imaginative works.

Speaking of imaginative, everything I've learned in Scripture courses suggests that LaHaye's Rapture beliefs are just plain wrong. The seven year testing period? Where is that in the NT?

>21 JDHomrighausen: Christianity is deep enough to inspire much more imaginative works.

There was another thread somewhere about Christian fiction. A J Cronin, Graham Greene, C S Lewis and Morris West were amongst the authors I remember who utilised that depth, inspiration and imagination.

I've said elsewhere on LT that I had never even heard of the rapture until I saw it in a British satirical cartoon taking the piss out of one of the recent US presidents a few years ago. I've since been led to understand that it was invented in Britain in the 19th century by Plymouth Brethren.

I'm primarily aware of it through the Slacktivist's savagings, but one particular pet peeve of mine is the Enigma Babylon One World Faith. Right or wrong, the Muslims and Baha'i and Buddhists and Hindus all really believe in their faiths. The concept that someone is going to wave their hands and come up with something that's going to lead all non-Christians away from their faiths is ridiculous and insulting.

I had heard of the rapture before I saw the film The Rapture, but it was from then that I started to pay attention to people talking about it.

Robert

>18 -jamiehorton-: It is amazing and will help you grow and learn about God

Yes, it is amazing how fantasy fiction can help you learn about God.
But 'twas ever thus.

You can learn about what other people think or have thought about God, but how can you learn about actual God, except of course, the one big thing every boy (and girl) should understand about god ?

The scriptures is God's word. He provided the answers to lifes questions for us. It is amazing to read how the people back before Christ was born had the same problems and the same questions we do today. From common people to great kings, they all had a need for God. You have to remember that being a Christian is a personal relatonship with our creator, not a religion. It is totally unique from all other beliefs. So once you have accepted Jesus in your heart, it's like the scriptures come alive, light a light is turned on in your life. Learn about God from a church that is Bible based, not a denomination that focuses on one thing, or ritualistic.

if any of you want to talk in private just send me a private message or give me your email. thank you for all your questions, i love to answer them. I will try to post a Bible verse everyday.
Todays Bible Verse:

Romans 12:1-2
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will."

#27: Here's a question: why do you think what you're doing is effective? You're treating us like children. We know you believe the scriptures are God's word. (I for one wonder if you have begun to wrestle with the issue that the Bible was written by many people with seemingly different agendas over a long period of time, and many parts of it don't match up with what other sources tell us, historically and scientifically.) I know we share many of the same problems and the same questions that ancient man did; in fact, I was with my father recently and he was listening to a Christian radio station where they were preaching what amounted to Stoicism.

It is totally unique from all other beliefs.

As I said, they were teaching Stoicism and failing to mention that little fact. (Not that the Stoics were "totally unique", either.) I can look at the world, and see a continuous pattern of growth and evolution from ancient Judaism to modern day, and all the time it's been interacting with the world around it. Modern Christianity is not ancient Christianity, for better and worse.

#28: Many of your heathen readers have read the Bible cover to cover. Even those that haven't aren't likely to be swayed by out of context quotations. I have no idea what this quote is supposed to be telling us, or why I as a non-Christian should care.

>27 -jamiehorton-:, 28 jamie, I'm a Christian, so I do accept the bible (albeit probably not with the same understanding as you), but I have to agree with modalursine in >29 prosfilaes: that just telling people to read the bible and quoting verses at them is not very useful.

As modal says, many atheists have read the bible. Indeed many are "post-Christians"; they were brought up as Christians and have since moved on. I would add that many Muslims have also read the bible. They respect it as a precursor to Islam, with Jesus as a major prophet, but it hasn't convinced them to leave Islam and become Christians.

I see you are a very new member to LT. I suggest that you look back through a few of the threads on the Christianity and Let's Talk Religion groups on LT and get a sense of the conversations and where people are, and then you might be in a better position to explain your views.

ref 27

The scriptures is God's word.

Some say it is; others say its not. Some say some other work is God's word, some say no work is God's word.

For every expert, there's an equal and opposite expert? How are we supposed to know who is correct and who is not?

Learn about God from a church that is Bible based, not a denomination that focuses on one thing, or ritualistic.

But "Bible-based" churches are, more than any, focused on one thing: the text of the Bible. Some of them are pretty ritualistic too, with ritual hand-waving, ritual bible-reading, ritual preaching, and ritual formalized "extempore" prayer.

It is amazing to read how the people back before Christ was born had the same problems and the same questions we do today.

That isn't amazing at all. They were humans, just like us.

However I am permanently in the middle of CS Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet series

The first one's meh, but Perelandra is great. I haven't read past, on the advice of others that it declines rapidly.

That isn't amazing at all. They were humans, just like us.

Your point is well taken. But's it's notable how effectively the New Testament continues to speak to people. I'm not making a religious argument, but this is relatively rare in ancient literature. Thucydides does it--reading him I think you can't help feeling you're in contact with a living mind. But these are atypical examples. Ancient texts are usually pretty distant. Nobody ever read Diodorus of Sicily or Artemidorus or Nikander and said "Wow, it's like he's speaking to ME!"

#34: I'm skeptical. I'll admit, you've read way more ancient literature then I have. But it sounds like the Muslim arguments that the Quran is such great literature that it must be of divine origin. It's easy for Christians to get into their holy books and find stuff that speaks to them; once you've been baby-fed a book in sermons and Sunday school and been taught how to interpret stuff to speak to them, it's a lot easier to sit down and read something like Romans and feel you understand it and it speaks to you.

Nobody ever read Diodorus of Sicily or Artemidorus or Nikander

It's too snide to say that we can leave the sentence there and it will still be true. But you're stacking the deck a little. Wikipedia has never heard of Nikander; it has heard of Nicander*, of whom it says

He wrote a number of works both in prose and verse, of which two survive complete. The longest, Theriaca, is a hexameter poem (958 lines) on the nature of venomous animals and the wounds which they inflict. The other, Alexipharmaca, consists of 630 hexameters treating of poisons and their antidotes.

I don't know you're expecting from 5-10 thousand words on those subjects that's going to rock your world.

* Okay, so I'll add the redirect.

In any case, the following hymn has hung above my desk from time to time, followed by "At tu, Catulle, destinatus obdura." It's not true that ancient literature does not speak to modern man.

Ares, exceeding in strength, chariot-rider, golden-helmed, doughty in heart, shield-bearer, Saviour of cities, harnessed in bronze, strong of arm, unwearying, mighty with the spear, O defence of Olympus, father of warlike Victory, ally of Themis, stern governor of the rebellious, leader of righteous men, sceptred King of manliness, who whirl your fiery sphere among the planets in their sevenfold courses through the aether wherein your blazing steeds ever bear you above the third firmament of heaven; hear me, helper of men, giver of dauntless youth! Shed down a kindly ray from above upon my life, and strength of war, that I may be able to drive away bitter cowardice from my head and crush down the deceitful impulses of my soul. Restrain also the keen fury of my heart which provokes me to tread the ways of blood-curdling strife. Rather, O blessed one, give you me boldness to abide within the harmless laws of peace, avoiding strife and hatred and the violent fiends of death.

>35 prosfilaes:

No, I'm not saying that. And I hear you--we're prepared to understand the Bible. Perhaps if we'd been spoon-fed Neoplatonism all our lives we'd enjoy reading Plotinus. Still, subjectively, I feel there are some works of ancient literature that really do bust through. I completely agree with you about Catullus.

Incidentally, I think this cuts the other way too. Some Christians are so "used" to be Bible and what they think it's saying that they can't see how weird it can be, or how it doesn't always say what they think. Scholars, for example, look at 5:18 and say that it means just what it says--and Matthew had a non-Pauline understanding of the law, in which Christians still had to follow the Jewish law. Most Christians would edit that away somewhere between the page and their brain.

On the Koran, I don't know. I don't read Arabic, so I can't really say how amazing it is as Arabic verse--I gather very--but the translations haven't impressed me. Have they you?

Wikipedia has never heard of Nikander; it has heard of Nicander

You say potato and I say potato. In fairness, however, I chose ascendingly dry authors. I mean, I LOVE Artemidorus, but he doesn't speak to mdoern man. And Nikander in particular is hard for us today because we have no experience of non-fiction poetry, as it were.

Ares, exceeding in strength

Thanks. I read that once but I have no memory. It's good. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite is also great.

~35

"It's too snide to say that we can leave the sentence there and it will still be true. But you're stacking the deck a little. Wikipedia has never heard of Nikander; it has heard of Nicander*, of whom it says ..."

My goodness, do you mean that Tim got the English spelling wrong of a Greek name? An obvious scholarly error of some magnitude.

#35 "Wikipedia has never heard of Nikander; it has heard of Nicander".

Neither spelling is any more correct than the other. It is not possible to transliterate Greek exactly because the alphabet is different from our own and there is no universally accepted transliteration of the letters that differ or do not exist in the target language. Personally, I prefer to use the spelling that is closest to the original Greek and therefore I would always use an English 'k' in place of the Greek one as there is no letter 'c' in Greek. However, it is purely a personal or 'house' choice and both spellings are acceptable. If anything, the one Tim quites is nearer the original than the one Wiki chooses to use.

#38: I know. I didn't mean to imply that his spelling was wrong; the point was that Wikipedia had barely heard of this guy, more generally speaking that he was picking incredibly obscure examples compared to the most prominent works of the Christian religion.

But's it's notable how effectively the New Testament continues to speak to people. I'm not making a religious argument, but this is relatively rare in ancient literature.

I'd point out two things. First, there is a fair amount of ancient literature that still speaks to people. Of course there is some that has fallen into obscurity, but there are still numerous authors whose work speaks to us down the centuries.

Second, I don't know if I would call the translated and retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted Bible a piece of "ancient literature". Just the various translation processes have altered the meaning to the concerns that were foremost at the time the translation was done (just to cite one example, the work that resulted in the King James version was highly politically charged and reflected the concerns of the day).

As an aside, I'd suggest that we do have versions of non-fiction poetry, but we call them "songs" and use them as teaching devices. What will future generations think when they run across the lyrics of I'm Just a Bill or Body Machines?

Apuleius speaks to me.

40: "Just the various translation processes have altered the meaning to the concerns that were foremost at the time the translation was done"

But if I look at other ancient literature which has had multiple translations--Beowulf, the Oddyssey, etc.--the same seems to be true of it as well. So I don't think we can disqualify the Bible as ancient literature on those grounds.

42: Probably not, but the type of ancient literature that Tim cited- the obscure works of Diodorus of Sicily, Artemidorus, and Nikander - has not generally gone through the process of being translated multiple times, subjected to repeated interpretations, and reassessed by more modern eyes. So to compare the Bible to them seems to be an inapt comparison, whereas comparing it to Homer seems much more apropos.

(Just a nitpick, but I don't think I would qualify Beowulf as ancient literature. I think it is too recent for that designation).

more generally speaking that he was picking incredibly obscure examples compared to the most prominent works of the Christian religion

Yes, admittedly so. However, it's worth adding that if Christianity had died out some time after the second century, we'd still have big hunks of the New Testament, but it would be pretty obscure. Roll the dice a different way(1) and the New Testament would be as obscure as the Corpus Hermeticum and the Mithras Liturgy, and they might be very well known indeed.

First, there is a fair amount of ancient literature that still speaks to people. Of course there is some that has fallen into obscurity, but there are still numerous authors whose work speaks to us down the centuries.

A lot of truth there. The problem is, of course, that while science is timeless, scientific literature is supposed to obsolesce. Galen and Aristotle's natural works had a long run, but no scientist of doctor reads them today, except as a lark. I think it would be a good thing if doctors in particular were more grounded in their history--the Greeks, but also people like Harvey, who isn't read any more either. Studying the reception of Greek and Roman literature you see this stuff "wink out," disappearing from the regular curriculum to live a shadow life among specialist scholars. Perhaps the last was Euclid's Geometry, which was still sometimes used as a textbook in mid-19c. America and Britain. Oh, the absolute last may have been a famous ancient dream book which saw its last printing in bits and pieces on the wrappers of candies in late-Czarist Russia!

As an aside, I'd suggest that we do have versions of non-fiction poetry, but we call them "songs" and use them as teaching devices. What will future generations think when they run across the lyrics of I'm Just a Bill or Body Machines?

Ha! Fair enough, although Nikander (and others) were less interested in helping you learn than those are. My pick would be They Might Be Giants, especially:

Meet the elements http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0zION8xjbM
Why does the sun shine? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLpu2UP3rGI
Why does the sun REALLY shine? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkGSV9WDMA

Apuleius speaks to me.

Who else, Apollonius of Tyana?

---

1. Assuming no providential diety.

> 44 Who else, Apollonius of Tyana?
"Several writings and many letters have been ascribed to Apollonius, but some of them are lost; others have only been preserved in parts or fragments of disputed authenticity," quoth Wikipedia, so: no.

As it happens, Prudentius is a favorite of mine. But I think I appreciate him in ways that most 21st-century readers could not.

The Tao Te Ching has a lot to say to me too, and besides being older than Apuleius, Prudentius, or the NT, it's from a culture that isn't a direct predecessor of my own.

Yes, Philostratus' life.

On the Koran, I don't know. I don't read Arabic, so I can't really say how amazing it is as Arabic verse--I gather very--but the translations haven't impressed me. Have they you?

I don't read classical Arabic, so I can't say from first hand
experience either; but if you believe Ibn Warraq (sp?) its no great shucks. The translations don't rock one's boat because the original just isn't that wonderful either. Or so goes his story.

I also think that there's something of a "halo" effect. If the official scripture, whatever it is, is even reasonably high up on literary merit even on a merely human scale, ones expectations that its the greatest stuff ever will enhance one's experience of it sufficiently that it might as well have been the greatest stuff ever.

but if you believe Ibn Warraq

I'm not sure I'd care what Dawkins thinks about the literary quality of the Bible, or what a fundamentalist thinks of Darwin's prose style.

I also think that there's something of a "halo" effect.

There's also a "founder effect." Arabic literature IS rooted in the Koran. It's the center, and that's got to help it. Similarly, I suspect we overrate the quality of the KJV--which is considerable, mind you--on account of it's position in English literature.

In a strict temporal sense, I'm not sure Beowulf is ancient literature, but the earliest seriously proposed dates for creation is about the 8th century, and especially in that case Beowulf has more in common with pagan Roman and Greek writings then with 8th century Christian Roman writings.

The literary quality of (at least some) of the Hebrew scriptures comes through even in (English) translation.

The same can be said for at least some of the Hindu cannon.

Now it may be that the Koran was just unlucky in never finding an adequate English translator but when you combine the "blah" impression ones generally gets from the available translations with comments from admittedly secular people who DO read classical Arabic that its just not all that hot, I'ld say we have reasonable evidence, if not the smoking gun, that points to the Koran's literary value as over valued by Islam's believers and boosters.

Well, the Bible is an anthology whose contents were picked through a process which literally took hundreds of years. The Qu'ran has a single author upon whose authority its own is directly derived.

> 51

It may have been less than "hundreds of years," but the Quran (a title that literally means something like "recitation") passed through a period of oral tradition before its canonical form was fixed in Arabic. The text was compiled after Muhammad's death. Muslim authorities tend towards the earliest possible dates for this posthumous fixation of the text, but there is a wide variety of criticism and skepticism on offer.

Some readers have even concluded that the Quran is no more the work of the "single author" Muhammad than the Torah is that of Moses.

In any case, it is not immune to the phenomena (beneficial and detrimental) of collective authorship.

>52 paradoxosalpha:

The primary collectivity in the Koran is surely that it employs an existing poetic tradition.

Have any of you read all the Hunger Games books? I read the first one, but havent started the next one.

54: That seems like a little bit of a left turn there.

They're better in the original Arabic.

#54 No. I thought I'd give the books a miss and just ask you anything I need to know about them.

>54 -jamiehorton-: Is it a new series of "Christian" books like Left Behind?

58: No. The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future America in which the United States has been replaced by a government called "Panem" in which a despotic Capitol rules over thirteen districts and exerts its power by requiring the districts to provide a teenage boy and girl every year to participate in the gladiatorial "Hunger Games" in which the children fight to the death until there is one final victor.

The book is the first part of a trilogy. Religion of any kind is mentioned almost not at all in the books.

I just recently re-read the Twilight Saga. When you know where to look, the Mormonism is quite clearly evident.

>60 cjbanning:: I had a (liberal) Mormon colleague in grad school express her disgust at how the Twilight books perpetuate a pervasive (Mormon) culture of ugly sexual submissiveness and female inferiority complex.

Plus reproductive futurism like whoa. It might be my own bias, but the pro-life message alongside all the "the proper vocation of humans is parenthood" stuff in twilight bothers me much more than the gender politics. Indeed, one of the things I have to give them is that (conservative) Mormons do seem to privilege fatherhood right alongside motherhood.

But read Twilight next to an Orson Scott Card novel and the parallel themes are fairly obvious.

Ya, i have never read the Twilight Saga, but i have watched the movies. They are pretty good, ill probably read the books soon. Watching the Olympics right now!!! :D

Hi, Jaie Horton
Good to meet you! I have been a believer in Christ since 1945! An I love Bible teaching! Hope you do! Now its wonderful because of Internet you can get Bible lessons free, any time written or audio. Wonderfull! go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Thieme

I have a website also: pls go to:http://acts16-31.com/ you may eish to use it, to spread the Good news?
Best from Hank Henderson

henkhenderson@gmail.com

Take away the Bible and then ask the question. And don't pray for me. I don't support your belief in a fantasy world.

If it's fantasy, @Saltraker, what harm will prayer do?

It's funny how good old-fashioned "free thinking" should now involve the demand that others not engage in what can only be described as thinking about you.

>65 Saltraker:: Logically, I should ask you not to come here and discuss your atheism, because I don't support your disbelief in God.

But you see, I am both liberal--in the sense that I don't think I should be demanding that you stop doing something just because I don't like it--and a Christian--which means I love and respect you too much to place such a draconian ban upon your thinking.

#67: It's funny how good old-fashioned "free thinking" should now involve the demand that others not engage in what can only be described as thinking about you.

Or it could be described as requesting favors of an extraterrestrial accused (by followers, no less) of responsibility in multiple genocides with that favor often being (especially in cases frequently objected to) that that being compel the complainer into service in the belief that that extraterrestrial will eternally torture those who don't serve him. Whether or not I believe in this extraterrestrial, I'd rather you not request such a favor of him.

Whenever Christians who know that I reject their religion pray "for" me, it smells like black magic.

Hocus pocus!

Put another way, intent matters. If you intend to do something to me, I don't see why I shouldn't object, even if I think it's not in your power. And when Christians say "I'll pray for you" over religious disputes, it's an attempt to take the upper hand, not a loving intent.

I certainly think "I'll pray for you" can be used in that way. But is it always so? An analogy might be drawn to personal situations. Sometimes "I'll pray for you" is passive-aggressive, but it's not always so. Simply assuming it's so strikes me as somewhat small-minded and ungenerous.

#73: But is it always so?

No, but this thread is started by a person more concerned about our religious beliefs then us, and not in a "I'm interested in your religious beliefs". In the context of this thread, I think it's safe to say it is.

Simply assuming it's so strikes me as somewhat small-minded and ungenerous.

I think one could also say that it's small-minding and ungenerous to take a "don't pray for me" in the context of this thread to be a real objection to praying for them when they're sick.

>74 prosfilaes:

The question isn't "when you're sick." I don't think the motivations are necessarily passive aggressive to tell someone you're going to pray for them even when it's fundamentally about your wrong views.

If someone on the "other side" were to tell me that they hoped that some day I recovered from the delusions about God, I would surely probably assume they were being an asshole, but it's possible they are actually wishing me a happier, clearer-eyed life.

#75: If someone on the "other side" were to tell me that they hoped that some day I recovered from the delusions about God, I would surely probably assume they were being an asshole, but it's possible they are actually wishing me a happier, clearer-eyed life.

As you point out, it's at best a failure of communication.

Moreover, if you invoke someone big--and we're not talking my brother Guido, or the Governor, or the President--it's no longer just a wish. It's more like someone in the Soviet Union telling you that they're going to have to talk to "people" about your religious beliefs. Even if you don't believe they can reach the ear of anyone that matters, they've still crossed the lines of reasonable discussion.

I suppose part of it is that lingering fundamentalist view of God, and part of it is that I just find the fundamentalist view of God more believable. The fundamentalists give me a bunch of unbelievable stories that set out God's character pretty clearly. Liberal Christianity takes away those stories but offers no stories to counteract them, and nothing I have in me personally lets me believe, even in a hypothetical sense, in a God that is righteous in just the ways that I believe to be right.

>76 prosfilaes:: "Liberal Christianity takes away those stories but offers no stories to counteract them"

You could start with the passages from the Gospels that lawecon has been tossing at us in another thread .... Matthew 5-7, I believe, which includes the Beatitudes.

St. Francis of Assisi wandered into a church one day and heard the passage from Matthew 19 being read, in which Jesus says, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

So that's what Francis did.

Moreover, if you invoke someone big--and we're not talking my brother Guido, or the Governor, or the President--it's no longer just a wish. It's more like someone in the Soviet Union telling you that they're going to have to talk to "people" about your religious beliefs. Even if you don't believe they can reach the ear of anyone that matters, they've still crossed the lines of reasonable discussion..

But the big person doesn't exist as far as you're concerned! And as far as they're concerned, the big person is infinitely loving, and wants only what is best for you.

I find some deep inability to sympathize with people here. If a new ager were to tell me she was going to rub crystals in my honor, to help me get in touch with the goddess, or a New Guinea tribesman were to offer up a guava to his ancestors, I'd consider it sweet. People have different belief systems, and within those systems they are loving you.

Responding to this with anger and condemnation strikes me like someone who kicks a dog for wagging their tail and licking his hand. After all, he don't consider show affection by ass-shaking and saliva, and everyone should be like him.

>76 prosfilaes: How do you work out that "liberal" Christianity has no stories? It shares all the stories in the bible with fundamentalists but interprets those stories differently. It has the story of the Church tradition over the last 2,000 years, which fundamentalists don't tend to have. And there are radical new ways of looking at the story. Liberation theology and other praxis theologies, for example, or Thomas Berry's view of The Universe Story.

~77

And that is why he was a Christian........ Now about the billion plus others..........

#78: And as far as they're concerned, the big person is infinitely loving, and wants only what is best for you.

And would that make it so much better in the Soviet Union example?

I find some deep inability to sympathize with people here. ... People have different belief systems, and within those systems they are loving you.

We can tell love from condescension, from attempts at dominance. It's pretty damn clear to me that a lot of time people use the phrase "I'll pray to you" to atheists, that there's no love there, that it's an attempt to win the argument.

Responding to this with anger and condemnation strikes me like someone who kicks a dog for wagging their tail and licking his hand. After all, he don't consider show affection by ass-shaking and saliva, and everyone should be like him.

What about women who react negatively to the phrase "hey babe, I'll tap that ass any time you want"?

>81 prosfilaes:: FWIW, when I say "I'll pray for you", I mean it sincerely as a sign of sympathy, compassion, and love. And then, when I go and say a prayer, it's not, "God, please instruct this person on why they're stupid!" It's, "Lord, I pray that you will bring comfort, aid, and strength to this person and to their families and friends in this time of crisis / trial / sorrow / difficulty."

Or, it's, "Lord, I thank you for this joy / wonder / beauty."

And as a man, I'd react negatively if a man offered up those words to any woman in my company.

#82: FWIW, when I say "I'll pray for you", I mean it sincerely as a sign of sympathy, compassion, and love.

And I have no problem with that. But for one, I think the objections are primarily to offers of prayers that aren't offered in that attitude, and for another, if you say that to me, it's not going to help much. If you want to offer sympathy to me, that's not the best language to use.

>83 prosfilaes:

Part of this is the "Merry Christmas Problem"—whether it is offensive to use your categories around people who may not share them. I favor a world in which we all understand what floats each others' boats, honor that part of them and take it easy. In this world Muslims send me happy Eid cards, pagans send me a happy Samhain cards, and atheists go with "happy new year." My notion of diversity can take that.

But the choice is ultimately aesthetic. Maybe muslims, pagans and atheists should be socially obligated to wish me a happy Christmas because that's what I believe, even if they don't. (Personally, I do that too—I don't send Jews Happy Hanukkah cards, but I'll certainly wish them one.) Weirdly enough, this solution is not usually on offer. No, the usual solution is that we solve the social problem by adopting the preferences of atheists.

In this case, the situation is aesthetic too—how much we're willing to honor others' different beliefs without feeling we've compromised our own.

>84 timspalding:
In my experience the social problem, if it exists at all, is solved by adopting the preferences of the predominant culture. Attempts are occasionally made, by the politically correct, to try to ban the public display of nativity scenes in case it might offend those of other faiths. Responses to this have been made by Muslims who make it clear that they are no more offended by such displays than would a Christian feel offended by a Muslim (or Jewish, or any other) society's religious festivals.
But few attempts are ever made to protect the sensibilities of anyone from the hideous secular displays of festivity which will be starting soon. Any ghastly song which has any reference to Christmas is belted out from loudspeakers in public places. Once again I am dreading the abominable 'Jingle Bells' and all that goes with it.
As a cultural Christian in a post-Christian society I shall continue to be pleased to receive Christmas cards, although I hope that none have been sent by those who feel 'socially obligated' to do so. And I know that my friends are pleased to receive cards from me, even though they know that I do not share their beliefs. Perhaps it would be more honest of me to send Happy Mithrasmas cards, but there would be no more point in that than sending a Happy Samhain. Neither festivity is celebrated here by name.
As an agnostic, sometimes labelled atheist, cultural Christian living in a post-Christian society I look forward to listening, as I have since a child, to the Christmas festival of carols and readings from King's College, Cambridge. The words and music of such as 'Once in Royal David's City' will contine to be a welcome refuge from Rudolph and his red nose.
Like Christians, not all atheists are the same, you know.

Any ghastly song which has any reference to Christmas is belted out from loudspeakers in public places. Once again I am dreading the abominable 'Jingle Bells' and all that goes with it.

I think you've proved a point you didn't intend. Jingle Bells is so popular commercially because it has no religious content at all. Even more, unlike, say, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," which has no religious content but mentions the holiday, Jingle Bells doesn't mention or allude to Christmas in any way whatsoever!

>86 timspalding:
Not that I didn't intend it, I intentionally included it as part of what I referred to as 'hideous secular displays of festivity'.

Fair enough. No reference to Christmas, though. :)

#84: Part of this is the "Merry Christmas Problem"—whether it is offensive to use your categories around people who may not share them.

I think this is a lot more intimate. Offering to prayer for you is not a casual greeting.

In this world Muslims send me happy Eid cards, pagans send me a happy Samhain cards, and atheists go with "happy new year."

Eid is in August this year, and Hanukkah was historically a minor Jewish holiday. Culturally, we crush every other cultural tradition until they fit our December & cards box. It's such a half-assed attempt at diversity.

Weirdly enough, this solution is not usually on offer. No, the usual solution is that we solve the social problem by adopting the preferences of atheists.

I suppose you're going to claim cultural myopia again? Certain Christians have made it very clear in the media that anything besides Merry Christmas is simply unacceptable, was going to be considered a War on Christmas. When I worked as a cashier, I wouldn't have rocked the boat by wishing someone a Happy Samhain or anything that wasn't generic or Christian. A corporation not celebrating Christmas is likely to get complaints and even boycotts; when the GAP dared to mention Solstice, that got special attack from the so-called American Family Association.

In fact, I don't even know what you mean by the "preferences of atheists". I do find a little offensive that you would group us all together when you take such offense sometimes about being treated as if Christians were a block.

I think this is a lot more intimate. Offering to prayer for you is not a casual greeting.

I agree. I'm not positive that makes it more of a problem, but I recognize the difference. If a Danish person made a butter sculpture for you, although you prefer olive oil, would that be similar? :)

Eid is in August this year

I'm well aware. Gotta hurt in hot countries, which is to say the middle east generally. I suppose the desire for sex goes down, but not drinking from sun-up to sun-down is hard even in the winter. (I supported a muslim friend doing Ramadan once, when we were in a western program in Turkey. It was hard, and after a while she let me out of it.)

Culturally, we crush every other cultural tradition until they fit our December & cards box

There's a lot of truth to that, although I'm not sure it's either weird or bad. The work week in Muslim countries is usually Thursday-Friday or Friday-Saturday. In Israel it's Friday-Saturday. Minority religions deal because the majority does tend to set the box.

In fact, I don't even know what you mean by the "preferences of atheists". I do find a little offensive that you would group us all together when you take such offense sometimes about being treated as if Christians were a block.

Fair enough. I'm assuming that if Christians want to wish Happy Christmas to people, atheists do not. After all, I also grouped Christians. But that's schematic and surely we all differ.

>89 prosfilaes:-90: "Eid is in August this year"

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but haven't the major news reports over the last few days been about the ceasefire in Syria that has been arranged for the upcoming celebration of Eid?

>85 jbbarret:: "Responses to this have been made by Muslims who make it clear that they are no more offended by such displays than would a Christian feel offended by a Muslim (or Jewish, or any other) society's religious festivals. "

I'm reminded of a story told by Peter Kreeft (a Catholic philosopher). He was teaching a night-class on world religions that included several Jewish and Muslim students. At one point, one of the "liberal" Christians in the class suggested that, for the sake of his non-Christian classmates, perhaps the crucifix in the classroom should be removed (this was at a Catholic university).

The Muslim student vehemently objected, saying that he would find it offensive if a Catholic were so ashamed of this major symbol of their faith that they wanted it hidden.

"The words and music of such as 'Once in Royal David's City' will contine to be a welcome refuge from Rudolph and his red nose."

One of those enduring memories from childhood was the child's voice that would sing the first verse of "Once in Royal David's City" at the Christmas Eve service -- it varied from year to year whether it was a boy soprano or a tween girl, based on who the choir director determined would do the best job with it.

I think this is a lot more intimate. Offering to prayer for you is not a casual greeting.

Intent also matters. I'm sorry to say that I've been prayed for a number of times by people who I'm sure have my best interests at heart when then ask God to help me turn from my wicked wicked ways. Since they believe in the power of prayer, it is hard not to interpret their actions as misguided or even hostile, since I don't think I am wicked at all, although of course they would never categorize it as such themselves. Fortunately, since I do not believe in the power of prayer I am able to ignore their earnest actions on my behalf, although it does not exactly foster a spirit of communal feeling or mutual respect.

On the other hand, when a dear cousin was dying of cancer, and her family called out to all of us to pray for her -- I found myself unable to offer such a simple, albeit empty, gesture of comfort. I was reduced to saying that I loved her, and doing what I could to help with the medical expenses. But I wished I could have prayed for her and have it mean something, since it would have meant something to her to hear it from me.

But I found myself unable to be dishonest, even to make a dying woman feel better. So I looked for secular alternatives to express love and comfort, and found them to be sorely lacking in their emotional impact.

>91 nathanielcampbell:

Different Eids. Eid just means celebration, I think. Ramadan is in August. The end of that is apparently called Eid al-Fitr. Eid al-Adha, which celebrates Abraham and Isaac, is the one people are talking about a cease-fire for.

Peter Kreeft

I have mixed feelings about him. I love one of his books—I use it a lot to prepare for RCIA—but some of his talks are too much vinegar for me. But that story is apposite. When I was at Georgetown there was a controversy because some of the newer classrooms never had crosses put in, either intentionally or on-purpose. Someone noticed, and tumult ensued.

But I found myself unable to be dishonest, even to make a dying woman feel better. So I looked for secular alternatives to express love and comfort, and found them to be sorely lacking in their emotional impact.

I'm sorry to hear this. Obviously you shouldn't have to lie. Certainly no Christian who understood their faith would want you to. Anyway, while I believe in the power of prayer, I think its principle effect is usually to move us toward moral action. It's hard to review everyone you love and how you've been behaving toward them without realizing where you've failed and where you can do more. That sort of stock-taking could be done without any reference to God. If you "figured out on your own" how to offer comfort, like visiting your cousin, well, more power to you. And if any Christian thinks praying for someone a substitute for, say, visiting them, shame on them.

If you "figured out on your own" how to offer comfort, like visiting your cousin, well, more power to you.

Well, actually I did. And on one of her better days we went out and had a great time bumming around a cheezy boardwalk tourist trap (something I normally avoid like the plague). That wasn't quite my point, I don't think.

I was really just trying to express the quandary I found myself in when her family sent out a general call for friends and family to pray for her. It wasn't like they asked the priest at her church to mention her. It was a facebook thing.

And I'm not even complaining, it's just that I found myself unable to participate in something that everyone else -- even those in my family who I know are nonbelievers -- seemed to take for granted. I mean, who's going to say no to something like that? How do you say "I can't do that for you"? But there really isn't a secular equivalent that would mean as much, is there.

>95 southernbooklady:

Well, I think there is. The secular equivalent to praying for someone is to show them love in another way. I get your quandary, but I think it comes from thinking about prayer as something separate from loving someone, which isn't how a believing Christian should regard it, and for you—who of necessity think such love is wasted—all the more.

I get the social pressure, although I find it very alien. Very few people I'm connected to on Facebook would put out such a request, except as a joke. While I am a committed believer, I wasn't always so, and that affects how I see things. When I hear "pray for me" it still sounds a little alien.

You should come live in the South! Such calls for prayer are almost a weekly occurrence on my facebook feed. ;-)

It's one of the reasons I've been hanging out on the religion threads, actually. Not to be convinced or converted, but to come to a better understanding of how to live well as a nonbeliever surrounded by a deeply religious community.

It's one of the reasons I've been hanging out on the religion threads, actually. Not to be convinced or converted, but to come to a better understanding of how to live well as a nonbeliever surrounded by a deeply religious community.

The answer is simple: We crave human blood. Without it, we become cranky and may threaten to "pray" for you. Leave the window open.

>91 nathanielcampbell:, 94 Yes, different 'Id. 'Id is often translated as "feast" in the sense of "celebration". This one is 'Id el Adha. It's a feast I always enjoyed when I lived in Khartoum. Muslim neighbours were always very hospitable in sharing the goat which they slaughtered.

>97 southernbooklady: It's one of the reasons I've been hanging out on the religion threads, actually. Not to be convinced or converted, but to come to a better understanding of how to live well as a nonbeliever surrounded by a deeply religious community.

I've said so often that I wish this "Let's Talk Religion" group would engage more in the "come to a better understanding" bit and less on criticising and trying to prove each other wrong - on all sides.

#95

But there really isn't a secular equivalent that would mean as much, is there.

Perhaps there isn't a secular "thing" equivalent to prayer, but I don't think that's the most important thing when it comes to responding to a need for prayer.

A friend who was dying of cancer asked me once, directly, to pray for her in St. Patrick's cathedral.
She knew perfectly well I was atheist, that wasn't important to her and it wasn't important to me. And if there is a god, and he's "all that", it couldn't have mattered to him.

I didn't feel a bit dishonest, but as I say, my friend knew who she was asking. On occasion when I eat with people who say grace, I say grace. I AM grateful in abstract for being alive and eating and puppies and kittens and the whole show and I can tap into that gratefulness when called on.

People are more important than their gods or lack thereof.

>101 LolaWalser: Thanks, Lola.

(101) Thank you, Lola. That is very sweet and caring.

The general view in Judaism, and in the types of Christianity for which I have any regard, is that prayer is not for G-d's benefit and may not even be "listened to" by G_d. If you believe in a G-d that is "all knowing," that seems to make a lot of sense, doesn't it? Such a G-d doesn't need someone to yell out "Hey, G-d, look over here !!"

I AM grateful in abstract for being alive and eating and puppies and kittens

Pardon me for having read that as " I AM grateful in abstract for being alive and eating puppies and kittens". It sounded so 'you' that I was quite disappointed when I realised my mistake. ;-)

As far as the praying goes, I'd completely agree with Lola. Of course the people are more important and if my best friend (who believes this stuff) wants me to pray for her I'm happy to do so, even though I don't expect it to do a bit of good. Likewise, I have no doubt she sometimes prays for me but she doesn't feel the need to tell me about it so that's fine too.

My own objection, though, is when strangers offer to pray for me for no good reason. This feels more as if it's to do with the general attitude held by many (not all) believers that they are somehow better than the rest of us and have a direct line to some higher power. It's not the fact of their praying, it's the fact that they feel they have to tell me about it. A bit like the difference between giving money to charity and telling everyone you give money to charity. If you have to make it explicit then you're probably expecting something in return, even if that 'something' is just warm feelings and the other person's recognition of your righteousness and general perfection.

If you want to pray for me that's fine - I can't stop you. But I don't have to be told about it as if that will build up Brownie points for you in my heart - because it won't.

ETA - Having said all of that, though, I do sometimes wonder what the response would be if I told a believer that I was going to hold a black Mass for them.

(105) @Booksloth wrote: My own objection, though, is when strangers offer to pray for me for no good reason. This feels more as if it's to do with the general attitude held by many (not all) believers that they are somehow better than the rest of us and have a direct line to some higher power. It's not the fact of their praying, it's the fact that they feel they have to tell me about it. A bit like the difference between giving money to charity and telling everyone you give money to charity. If you have to make it explicit then you're probably expecting something in return, even if that 'something' is just warm feelings and the other person's recognition of your righteousness and general perfection.

I agree and disagree with you.

1. I'm a fairly 'new' born-again Christian, having been 'saved' 12 years ago. I lived 40 years before that, so I have an inkling of each side.

2. The perception that believers, as a whole'. believe that they are 'better' than others is not true based upon my experience. As a 'non' believer, I felt that way, but now that I am on the other side of the equation, I am aware that the intent of telling others that you will pray for them is not meant to get 'brownie points' or show off.

3. I appreciate other people praying for my needs, and when they tell me that they are going to pray for me, I am comforted and encouraged.

So, for the most part, telling others you will pray for them is not the same as bragging about giving money to charity, which, in itself, is against Biblical teachings.

True story: before I became a born-again Christian, I had an online friendship with a man who was born-again. We had lots of 'religious' discussions through PMs and emails, but never antagonistic. One day he mentioned that his daughter was in the hospital with pneumonia, and asked me to pray for her. I was aghast, because I was not a praying person and did not profess to be Christian. My response was "Why would your god listen to me?" However, since my friend asked, I tried to pray for his daughter.

I don't know if it helped her any, but it made my friend feel better, and I did it for friendship.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I wanted to clarify some points about born-again Christians and their beliefs.

Peace. :)

>101 LolaWalser: I didn't feel a bit dishonest, but as I say, my friend knew who she was asking. On occasion when I eat with people who say grace, I say grace. I AM grateful in abstract for being alive and eating and puppies and kittens and the whole show and I can tap into that gratefulness when called on.

For what it is worth, I might have responded differently to a personal request. As you say, I can sit at the table and listen to people say grace and feel thankful without having to thank god. And if my aunt had said to me "please, pray for her" I would have done what I could.

But I couldn't answer a general call in the same way, or add my response to the dozens that came through on facebook saying "I'm praying to God every day for you" without being a complete hypocrite. So, as I said, I found other ways. Because as you say, it's about the person, not the praying.

#106 I take your point entirely but when you say I appreciate other people praying for my needs, and when they tell me that they are going to pray for me, I am comforted and encouraged. therein lies the difference - you believe it may do some good; I don't. To you, they are offering to do a kind, and possibly effective, act but to me, they are just going to think something. It does sometimes make me wonder if it's meant to be a bit like faith healing or voodoo which only 'works' if the recipient knows about it.

I know this is a hard conversation to have without us all offending each other and I don't wish to do that but it also carries the implication that they think I would like to know they are praying for me because I share their beliefs and I do object to being categorised in any way by people who don't know me. It's a minor point but one worth making. I have a dog who means the world to me and if I really loved someone enough I might say (okay, I wouldn't, but try to stick with me here anyway) "Because I love you so much I'm going to let you look after my dog for a week'. I may think that is a real privilege but it's quite likely they would think it was a hell of an imposition. Nobody wants to be made/expected to feel grateful for something they didn't want and don't need.

This is probably the only, very small, way in which I occasionally envy religious people - because it is rather nice, when someone you care about is having a tough time, to be able to say 'I'm praying for you' and we atheists don't really have an equivalent to that. To me, it simply means 'I'm thinking nice things about you and hoping it all turns out well' and that's something I would appreciate anyone doing. None of us can prevent anyone else thinking anything they like, which is why I'm not about to punch anyone on the nose for praying for me if it makes them feel better but I'm not really all that interested in being told about it.

>108 Booksloth: 'I'm thinking nice things about you and hoping it all turns out well'

I usually say, "My thoughts and prayers are with you", which seems to cover both bases.

About ten years ago my sister was told she had less than six months to live as her cancer had spread too far to be operated on (subsequently the doctors discovered it hadn't spread as much as they thought and they were able to shrink it with chemo- and radio-therapy and then operate, and she is still alive and well). She is non-religious, but people were praying for her, including many she didn't know (eg people from our mum's parish, friends of mine in Africa, etc). She was not in the least offended and was just grateful that so many people were wishing her well.

But I do understand how aggressive statements of "I'm praying for you" can feel as if they have an agenda, and at times no doubt they do. I think it's particularly true when you see an LT exchange where the atheist disagrees with the Christian and the response is "I'll pray for you". That does sound like a rather self-righteous statement.

~106

Actually, fuzzi, you've clarified nothing. You've made a number of statements about the other guy's impressions and said "it isn't true." You never tell us what is true, however. For instance: "believers don't tell other that they will pray for them "to get brownie points" or show off," but no explanation of why they do engage in such behavior - particularly when they know that the expression is not appreciated.

You're related a story from your past experience (as you usually do in one way or another).

As for actually joining (as in coming to grips with and saying relevant things about) the conversation or the points being made in the conversation - nothing at all.

Frankly, fuzzi, no one is impressed that you've been born again. When you can tell us why you've been born again in a way that will mean something to someone who isn't, then please do so. Until then, this constant refrain is rather boring. I know that "stating my opinion" is a favorite sport among American internet users, but see if you can do better.

Thumper called. He has a message for you.

#102, 103

Seems like you two have mastered the art of gratefulness-in-abstract too. ;) Without meaning to be churlish or argumentative, I deserve no thanks for loving a friend, if that's what prompted them.

#107

I understand, I certainly couldn't respond to a general call for prayer posted on Facebook. Even if coming from an intimate friend, unless told otherwise I'd assume it was directed primarily to those who believe that their prayer is actually interceding. At the same time, I can't think that my concern and affection and desire to help would be less than theirs because it would be expressed in some other way.

>112 LolaWalser:: I think that 102 and 103 were thanking you for sharing your thoughts. I would thank you, too, but it seems you don't like people to say nice things nice to you, so...

...I'll pray for you ?

(he said with a humorous twinkle in his eye)

And I'll fuck for you.

~111

The same message you always have, Tim?? Did he consult the "consensus of scholars"?

#106: I appreciate other people praying for my needs, and when they tell me that they are going to pray for me, I am comforted and encouraged.

If I do pray for you, I will invoke deities that do not ask for my belief and who do not have other more constant petitioners pleading for them on this subject, probably starting with the Greek pantheon. (Though issues in pregnancy go straight to Pazuzu.) I'm not sure how comforting that will be to you.

(116) If you invoke a deity that does not exist, no harm done. :)

>112 LolaWalser: For what it's worth, Lola, I was thanking you for sharing. I was moved by your words.

Christian Piatt has an article on his blog, "Five New Christian Cliches to Avoid" that includes:

I’m praying for you: I had a guy say this to me last week who was not a fan of my work. And although sometimes people mean well when they say this, often times it’s basically the religious equivalent of the middle finger (I don’t like you and wish you would change, so I’m going to pray you become more like me). Now, there are those times when people say it with truly benevolent intent, but it’s still a very personal thing. Instead, consider asking someone if they would like for you to pray for them, and ask what they would like you to pray for instead of making too many assumptions.

(119) @prosfilaes, that's actually what I do. I ask them if they'd mind if I prayed for their (problem/illness/family member). I've never yet had anyone refuse prayer.

FYI: my offers of prayer are meant for good, never in a snide or snarky way. :)

#120 If someone who I know cares about me asks that question I would always thank them - and if it made them feel better then I'd be very happy for them but I wouldn't expect it to make any difference to my own situation. So I'd have to ask again - with the exception of people whom you know share your beliefs and may be comforted by your offer, why do you find it necessary to tell someone you are praying for them? If you believe it will do some good, what is wrong with just doing it? (Genuine request for explanation; not a challenge.)