You probably don't really believe in Prayer

[cecilia97]

The Catechism says this:

**PART FOUR
CHRISTIAN PRAYER
SECTION ONE
PRAYER IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE **

2558 “Great is the mystery of the faith!” The Church professes this mystery in the Apostles’ Creed (Part One) and celebrates it in the sacramental liturgy (Part Two), so that the life of the faithful may be conformed to Christ in the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father (Part Three). This mystery, then, requires that the faithful believe in it, that they celebrate it, and that they live from it in a vital and personal relationship with the living and true God. This relationship is prayer.

**WHAT IS PRAYER? **

**Prayer as God’s gift **

2559 "Prayer is the raising of one’s mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God."2 But when we pray, do we speak from the height of our pride and will, or “out of the depths” of a humble and contrite heart?3 He who humbles himself will be exalted;4 humility is the foundation of prayer, Only when we humbly acknowledge that "we do not know how to pray as we ought,"5 are we ready to receive freely the gift of prayer. "Man is a beggar before God."6

2560 "If you knew the gift of God!"7 The wonder of prayer is revealed beside the well where we come seeking water: there, Christ comes to meet every human being. It is he who first seeks us and asks us for a drink. Jesus thirsts; his asking arises from the depths of God’s desire for us. Whether we realize it or not, prayer is the encounter of God’s thirst with ours. God thirsts that we may thirst for him.8

2561 "You would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."9 Paradoxically our prayer of petition is a response to the plea of the living God: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water!"10 Prayer is the response of faith to the free promise of salvation and also a response of love to the thirst of the only Son of God.11

**Prayer as covenant **

2562 Where does prayer come from? Whether prayer is expressed in words or gestures, it is the whole man who prays. But in naming the source of prayer, Scripture speaks sometimes of the soul or the spirit, but most often of the heart (more than a thousand times). According to Scripture, it is the heart that prays. If our heart is far from God, the words of prayer are in vain.

2563 The heart is the dwelling-place where I am, where I live; according to the Semitic or Biblical expression, the heart is the place “to which I withdraw.” The heart is our hidden center, beyond the grasp of our reason and of others; only the Spirit of God can fathom the human heart and know it fully. The heart is the place of decision, deeper than our psychic drives. It is the place of truth, where we choose life or death. It is the place of encounter, because as image of God we live in relation: it is the place of covenant.

2564 Christian prayer is a covenant relationship between God and man in Christ. It is the action of God and of man, springing forth from both the Holy Spirit and ourselves, wholly directed to the Father, in union with the human will of the Son of God made man.

**Prayer as communion **

2565 In the New Covenant, prayer is the living relationship of the children of God with their Father who is good beyond measure, with his Son Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit. The grace of the Kingdom is "the union of the entire holy and royal Trinity . . . with the whole human spirit."12 Thus, the life of prayer is the habit of being in the presence of the thrice-holy God and in communion with him. This communion of life is always possible because, through Baptism, we have already been united with Christ.13 Prayer is Christian insofar as it is communion with Christ and extends throughout the Church, which is his Body. Its dimensions are those of Christ’s love.14

---

…this acknowledges the petition aspect of prayer but not to the exclusion of the other purposes of prayer. The blue parts I highlighted, to me, show the essential difference between Imagine23’s arguments and the view of prayer shown by Catholics on this thread…that we do not always know to ask for what we really need. God will only give us the things that are good for us.

 

[exoflare]

No more so than asking my earthly parents to do things for me. Because I’m not spoiled rotten and self-centred or self-obsessed I don’t expect that they will ALWAYS jump to obey my every whim, but yes, plenty of times they will help out. And so does God.

Good point. Most hardcore atheists seem to be the spiritual equivalent of the spoiled brat who thinks he has “bad parents” because they won’t let him eat ice cream for breakfast every morning.

 

[kellie]

Good point. If you were rationalizing something, you’d be using reason, which theists do not rely on.

The best definition I’d have for Faith in the Catholic concept I guess would be a blind adherence to ancient doctrine which often defies common sense and logic. Is that a fair definition?

I like to think of it this way.

I know I am descended by my great-great-grandfather and believe he existed and most of what his values were, even though I never saw him in person. I know about him through my great-grandfather passing details down to my grandfather, who passed down details to my father who then told me.

I know Jesus existed and what His teachings were, as one by one, people passed down the details. We call this our Traditions. I can also read about Jesus in the Bible which was recorded down for all to come to read.

But I have never seen Jesus in person.

Yes I guess it is blind faith, and sometimes defies logic as we know it. That is because we are human, with human thinking.

It will all make sense one day when I am in eternal happiness with God.

 

[kellie]

Hi Imagine123,

I now have a real life story I can share with you regarding how I, as a Catholic, define prayer.

I am facing an appointment with a doctor in a couple of weeks of which I am scared.
I need to get a biopsy done to test for cervical cancer, as I have high-grade abnormal cells which appeared in my last test.

My doctor has said it has been detected early enough, and to relax, and the abnormal cells will be removed, and I won’t have to face cancer. However it is still a risk that I may develop it in the future.

I prayed to God the other night in bed.

I merely told Him I was afraid, that I loved Him, that I don’t want cancer, that it is in His hands as to what will happen with medical help from the specialists, and that if I do face cancer, I asked Him for the strength to deal with it.

Does that make more sense?

I did not merely say to God “Hey buddy, I don’t want cancer, get rid of these abnormal cells for me yourself.”

I expressed my desire for His help to get rid of them, and His strength to guide me.

I feel better after this praying, that I have placed my trust in Him, He is with me all the way.

 

[Nan_S]

This is a fundamentally different definition of prayer from the Catholic (and I should say any other Christian definition) of prayer. The question here is not who “believes more” in the virtue of prayer than whom. It is a question of whose idea of prayer is correct and whose idea is false. The two ideas are so fundamentally different that they can’t both be right. One of them has to be wrong. zerinus

Cecilia has given us some of the significant passages from the Catechism about prayer, so I won’t belabor to repeat them.

The ten-cent summary is this:

Christian Science thinks that disease is caused by ignorance or denial of God. It’s traditional Old Testament stuff, dating back to when the Hebrews believed physical perfection was a sign of being blessed, and physical suffering was a sign of being punished or cursed. For CS, genuine faith and prayer are therefore answered in Old Testament fashion with both spiritual and physical health.

Real Christians know differently. Pain and suffering, infirmity and disease, remind us to be humble and receptive to God. Therefore, although we believe very heartily in prayer and its power to heal, we do not equate spiritual health with physical health. Some of the most physically healthy people on earth are the most god-less; just look at southern California and the movie industry.

2 Cor 12:7-10 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

CS dismisses the physical world as a erroneous mis-perception of the spiritual, and proclaims that “right belief” (True Faith and Prayer) enables the believer to overcome physical infirmity by embracing spiritual perfection.

Real Christians know that there is a difference between the physical and the spiritual, and that the nature of the physical is to be imperfect and corrupt. Therefore, we also know that True Faith and Prayer leads to spiritual health but not necessarily to physical health.

1 Cor 15:35-37, 42-44 But some one will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Knowing, therefore, that CS theology about the physical world and suffering denies the clear teaching of scripture, we also know that it is a fool’s errand for Imagine23 to equate the intents and results of CS prayer with real Christian prayer.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Christian Science thinks that disease is caused by ignorance or denial of God. It’s traditional Old Testament stuff, dating back to when the Hebrews believed physical perfection was a sign of being blessed, and physical suffering was a sign of being punished or cursed. For CS, genuine faith and prayer are therefore answered in Old Testament fashion with both spiritual and physical health.

Sorry to disagree, but that is not Old Testament theology. It may be CS theology, but definitely not OT. You seem to have very little appreciation for the OT. I doubt if you have even read it, or understood what you have read, otherwise you wouldn’t talk about it like that. The OT people knew God, prayed to Him in great faith, and were able to accomplish mighty miracles through faith in His name. CS people don’t seem to even believe in God, by their own admission, and certainly not in praying to Him. The OP is quite frank in admitting this:

So asking God to do things for you is incredibly ineffective, as we all acknowledge, and quite a waste of time.

So to them prayer is not to God. God is not the focal point of their “prayer” at all—if it can be called “prayer”. Their idea of prayer is to establish (as they suppose) some kind of “spiritual connect” with the realm of the spiritual creation without direct appeal to the Divine. So how they define it as “prayer” I have no idea. Biblical prayer is to God, both OT and NT. That is how prayer is defined in the Bible. There is no such thing as prayer outside that framework in the Bible. That is the way Jesus prayed and counselled others to pray; and that is how the OT prophets prayed and performed their mighty works. That is also how prayer is defined in the Book of Mormon, and in other modern LDS scripture. Here is an example quote:

Alma 34:

18 Yea, cry unto him for mercy; for he is mighty to save.

19 Yea, humble yourselves, and continue in prayer unto him.

20 Cry unto him when ye are in your fields, yea, over all your flocks.

21 Cry unto him in your houses, yea, over all your household, both morning, mid-day, and evening.

22 Yea, cry unto him against the power of your enemies.

23 Yea, cry unto him against the devil, who is an enemy to all righteousness.

24 Cry unto him over the crops of your fields, that ye may prosper in them.

25 Cry over the flocks of your fields, that they may increase.

26 But this is not all; ye must pour out your souls in your closets, and your secret places, and in your wilderness.

27 Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your hearts be full, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your welfare, and also for the welfare of those who are around you.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

Sorry to disagree, but that is not Old Testament theology. It may be CS theology, but definitely not OT. You seem to have very little appreciation for the OT. I doubt if you have even read it, or understood what you have read, otherwise you wouldn’t talk about it like that. The OT people knew God, prayed to Him in great faith, and were able to accomplish mighty miracles through faith in His name. CS people don’t seem to even believe in God, by their own admission, and certainly not in praying to Him. The OP is quite frank in admitting this:

zerinus

I’ll let the OP decend the rest of your post, if he cares to do so.

But as to this one, once again you are being presumptive: “I doubt you have even read it…” Perhaps you should push your keyboard aside and do some reading yourself.

My dear boy, I TEACH the Old Testament in formal classes. I have done this for years. The Hebrews most certainly DID believe that disease was a sign they were being punished, and physical health a sign they were blessed. They believed prayer restored health, not because they had some kind of CS physical-spiritual world mysticism, but because they believed health was a sign God used to show humans who amongst them was spiritually pure.

God had to intervene and convince them otherwise. It took the Israelites until after the Babylonian Captivity for the message to finally start to sink in.

Here’s just one example of many where God tries to correct this idea:
1 Sam 16:1-7 The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.” And Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me.” And the LORD said, “Take a heifer with you, and say, I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’ And invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for me him whom I name to you.” Samuel did what the LORD commanded, and came to Bethlehem. The elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, “Do you come peaceably?” And he said, “Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD; consecrate yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice.” And he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice.
When they came, he looked on Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed is before him.” But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

Good day,
Nan

 

[zerinus]

I’ll let the OP decend the rest of your post, if he cares to do so.

I fear you may be hoping in vain. The OP appears to be scared of me! I couldn’t get him to answer my posts. I eventually had to look for the answer to my question elsewhere.

My dear boy, I TEACH the Old Testament in formal classes. I have done this for years.

Well I am glad that you teach the OT. It is a great book to teach, and should to be treated with great respect. Now that you teach the OT, I hope that you will make a special effort to understand it better, because you understanding of it appears to be very superficial.

The Hebrews most certainly DID believe that disease was a sign they were being punished, and physical health a sign they were blessed. They believed prayer restored health, not because they had some kind of CS physical-spiritual world mysticism, but because they believed health was a sign God used to show humans who amongst them was spiritually pure.

God had to intervene and convince them otherwise. It took the Israelites until after the Babylonian Captivity for the message to finally start to sink in.

Here’s just one example of many where God tries to correct this idea:

When they came, he looked on Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed is before him.” But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

That is what I mean by saying that your understanding of the OT is rather superficial. In this verse Samuel is not commenting on, or forming an opinion based on, Eliab’s state of health; but on his physique, and on his impressive physical appearance. In those days a king was also a military commander; therefore he had to be a physically strong and well built man to lead armies to battle (which required physical strength in those days). See, for example, the descriptions given of Saul as a suitable man to be king (1 Sam 9:2; 10:23-24). Jesse had at least eight sons. Eliab was probably his firstborn; therefore by the rule of the firstborn he qualified to be the first choice for consideration to be king. Evidently he also had the right kind of appearance. He was tall, dark, and handsome; therefore Samuel thought that he must be the right choice for the job. But it did not mean that he was more healthy than the rest. All of them were equally healthy, and David was probably more so than the rest. This is what it says about David:

1 Sam 16:

11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.

12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

All of them were equally healthy and good looking like me. Their state of health was not a determining factor; but their physical prowess would have been (as Samuel thought). In fact I don’t recall any instance in the OT where sickness and ill health was always regarded to be a sign of God’s displeasure. Some were clearly punished for their sins with various diseases; but that is not the same thing as saying that sickness and ill health was always regarded to be a sign of God’s displeasure. I know of no instance in the OT that proves this. If you know perhaps you can tell us.

zerinus

 

[cecilia97]

I fear you may be hoping in vain. The OP appears to be scared of me! I couldn’t get him to answer my posts. I eventually had to look for the answer to my question elsewhere.

That is what I mean by saying that your understanding of the OT is rather superficial. In this verse Samuel is not commenting on, or forming an opinion based on, Eliab’s state of health; but on his physique, and on his impressive physical appearance. In those days a king was also a military commander; therefore he had to be a physically strong and well built man to lead armies to battle (which required physical strength in those days). See, for example, the descriptions given of Saul as a suitable man to be king (1 Sam 9:2; 10:23-24). Jesse had at least eight sons. Eliab was probably his firstborn; therefore by the rule of the firstborn he qualified to be the first choice for consideration to be king. Evidently he also had the right kind of appearance. He was tall, dark, and handsome; therefore Samuel thought that he must be the right choice for the job. But it did not mean that he was more healthy than the rest. All of them were equally healthy, and David was probably more so than the rest. This is what it says about David:

1 Sam 16:

11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.

12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.

All of them were equally healthy and good looking like me. Their state of health was not a determining factor; but their physical prowess would have been (as Samuel thought). In fact I don’t recall any instance in the OT where sickness and ill health was always regarded to be a sign of God’s displeasure. Some were clearly punished for their sins with various diseases; but that is not the same thing as saying that sickness and ill health was always regarded to be a sign of God’s displeasure. I know of no instance in the OT that proves this. If you know perhaps you can tell us.

zerinus

I have to disagree. We describe atheletes as “healthy” today. Being strong, well-built, in good shape…I’d call that healthy!

from Webster’s:

Main Entry: health
Pronunciation: \ˈhelth also ˈheltth\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English helthe, from Old English hǣlth, from hāl
Date: before 12th century
1 a: the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially : freedom from physical disease or pain b: the general condition of the body
2 a: flourishing condition : well-being <defending the health of the beloved oceans — Peter Wilkinson> b: general condition or state
3: a toast to someone’s health or prosperity

…
synonyms healthy, sound, wholesome, robust, hale, well mean enjoying or indicative of good health. **healthy implies full strength and vigor as well as freedom from signs of disease **.

 

[seekerz]

That’s funny. I’m not arguing that what Christian Scientists believe about prayer is true. I think it’s ridiculous. Of course it doesn’t work. Prayer does not work. It’s as effective as talking to your rose garden.

Answer to who has stronger faith? The Christian Scientists.

You obviously have no idea what faith is and what prayer means.

Prayer is always effective; it just doesn’t always get us what we want (just as a child may not get all that he demands). The correct attitude of prayer is that of Jesus: “nevertheless, not my will but yours be done”; the presence of millions of Christians worldwide is a testament to the effectiveness of that prayer.

It requires more faith to place the outcome of surgery in the hands of God (who ultimately knows what’s best for us) than to take the stand that he is definitely going to heal without anyone’s help. The former attitude respects and defers to the will of God, the latter reflects a dogged determination to expect and accept only one’s own will in the matter.

By the way, on the topic of death and death tolls alluded to earlier. Just because a person in danger prays to God and dies doesn’t mean to me that God didn’t answer their prayer; He did - with His own divine will.

What’s so terrible about death for a believer anyway? As Christians we believe that it’s the doorway to a better life. How can we get to heaven if we don’t die? Jesus himself died - and look where that got us!

It’s human to fear the unknown especially when it entails separation from those dear to us, but the spiritual side of us should acknowledge that at some point, for all of us, death is the appropriate response to prayer.

 

[SusanL]

But the point is that if your prayer wishes are contrary to his plan, you have no hope. Apparently, God’s divine plan required the killing of over 150,000 men, women and children in the 2004 Asian Tsunami. So any prayers by those people would have been entirely in vain. Which demonstrates the utter futility of prayer. What greater need would someone have for divine intervention then when faced with imminent death by a Tsunami bearing down on him and his family.

But I guess your response to them would be sorry 150,000 people, you’ve got to die, God is busy making sure my brother’s doctor fixes his herniated disc.

I’m not an expert so bear with me on this, please. You seem to be responding with a bit of anger or at best, hostility, towards the understanding of the Bible. For sure, I cannot answer everything for you as there are other people who are much smarter than I am and better educated but I still would like to throw out something.

The Bible is very very complex. You are actually bringing up several different points to talk about. Each subject that you have brought up is vast. We need to stick to one subject if you really want to understand. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

As far as the people dying. Who says that it is a bad thing to die?? Perhaps it is scary because of the pain involved and because the devil wants to inject fear into all of us; however, death itself is not a bad thing.

My mother-in-law had a near death experience and was never afraid of it again. In fact, she was mad as heck that she was brought back.

The death of all of those people to us seems tragic but what is **truly tragic **is to spurn God and spend our hereafter in hell.

Look, Imagine23. You can try hard to win an argument and feel pretty righteous right now but, in my opinion, that’s pretty stupid. Would it not be better to try and find out why things are being taught in the Catholic Church instead? Most of it takes some research and you have to be able to wrap your head around it but it is so worth it. Sometimes you have to dig but if you do it with strong desire to understand then you’ll see that it really all does fit together.

Are you interested in books to read?

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

I remember a scene from the movie Saturday Night Fever…

John Travolta is at the family dinner table and talking with his Mother. He asks her if she is going to church and she says “Yes.” She then says that she has to pray to God for her other son…a priest… to call her.

John Travolta then says…“What? You’re asking God to be a telephone operator?” (or words to that effect)

I firmly believe in prayer…it has helped me through some tough times. We don’t always ask God for things when we pray…sometimes it is just a “one on one” conversation, if you will…or to say “Thanks.”

:heart:Blyss

 

[Nan_S]

All of them were equally healthy and good looking like me. Their state of health was not a determining factor; but their physical prowess would have been (as Samuel thought).

Before antibiotics were discovered and dental drills were invented, most young adult men were not of fine physical appearance. Their bodies, while muscular, showed the effects of disease and injury - pockmarks from acne and smallpox, decayed teeth, broken bones, ugly scars, you name it.

It was fairly easy to find a pre-pubescent child like David with a ruddy appearance, clear skin and good teeth, but to find an adult who still looked that good was extremely rare. Samuel looked on Jesse’s eldest, Eliab, saw that he was such a rare physically healthy person, and thought he was therefore spiritually healthy.

My original point stands.

In fact I don’t recall any instance in the OT where sickness and ill health was always regarded

to be a sign of God’s displeasure. Some were clearly punished for their sins with various diseases; but that is not the same thing as saying that sickness and ill health was always regarded to be a sign of God’s displeasure. I know of no instance in the OT that proves this. If you know perhaps you can tell us.

zerinus
In my posts on this thread I did not say “always” and “never.” I made broad statements that described the widespread, general attitude of the Israelites. Most believed that disease, poverty, and defeat in battle were regarded as a sign of God’s displeasure.

It appears you are here to learn how to debate with non-Mormons, in anticipation of going out on mission. Here are a few pieces of advice in being both successful and respected:

1. Try to avoid using absolutes such as “always” and “never.” They do very little to enhance your arguments. They tend to show rigidity in your thinking, which is frequently perceived as a lack of respect for your prospects. Absolutes also act as an invitation for your prospect to poke holes in your statements, since nearly everything has an exception.
2. Respect your prospects as children of God, even while politely disagreeing with them. The first step in evangelizing is not to beat on your prospects, but to listen and respect them. Show a respectful understanding of what they are saying, even if you completely disagree, and they will usually perceive your respect for their worth as children of God, Then you can ask questions that will make them think and know that your questions will be given serious consideration.

Instead of :tsktsk: -]that is not Old Testament theology/-] try saying “We understand the Old Testament to mean something different. I’d like to share it with you.”

Instead of :banghead: -]You seem to have very little appreciation for the OT/-] try saying “I think I understand your position, but I feel I must disagree.” :yup:

Instead of :whacky: -]I doubt if you have even read it, or understood what you have read/-] try saying “That’s interesting. Can you show me how you came to that conclusion?”

Trying to do it any other way will get you very little except a bloody nose when they slam the door in your face.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Before antibiotics were discovered and dental drills were invented, most young adult men were not of fine physical appearance. Their bodies, while muscular, showed the effects of disease and injury - pockmarks from acne and smallpox, decayed teeth, broken bones, ugly scars, you name it.

It was fairly easy to find a pre-pubescent child like David with a ruddy appearance, clear skin and good teeth, but to find an adult who still looked that good was extremely rare. Samuel looked on Jesse’s eldest, Eliab, saw that he was such a rare physically healthy person, and thought he was therefore spiritually healthy.

My original point stands.

Sorry Nan, but I don’t read that into the text. Besides, how do you know that the Israelites at that time were so sick and diseased ridden as you suggest? Did you have a time machine to go there and look? Is there anything written in the Bible to suggest this? You are making a lot of assumptions without evidence to back it up. It is true that modern medical advancement enables us to live free of diseases most of our lives; but this has only been a recent phenomenon. 100 years ago people didn’t have any of that. But old photographs, paintings, and portraits of people that have survived from them don’t exactly show them as being disease ridden. Their younger folks look as good and healthy as in our generation. Life expectancy among them was lower, that is true; because if they caught a serious disease they often died from it, and didn’t live to tell the tale. Infant mortality among them was very high. But once they survived that, there is nothing to suggest that they all looked unhealthy and diseased ridden as you suggest.

In my posts on this thread I did not say “always” and “never.” I made broad statements that described the widespread, general attitude of the Israelites. Most believed that disease, poverty, and defeat in battle were regarded as a sign of God’s displeasure.

There is no evidence for that. You are making that up. It is true that in those days (and even in some less advanced societies today) people often took a “fatalistic” attitude to life. They thought that “fate” and the “will of God” played a bigger role in their lives than they do today. These verses reflect that kind of sentiment:

1 Samuel 2:

7 The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

Proverbs 22:

2 The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the maker of them all.

But that is not the same as saying that they considered sickness and misfortune to be always (or even generally) a sign of God’s displeasure. In particular, I totally object to your equating CS theology with OT theology. That is just not on. There is no way that can be reconciled with what is taught in the OT.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

It appears you are here to learn how to debate with non-Mormons, in anticipation of going out on mission. Here are a few pieces of advice in being both successful and respected:

Not at all! I have been debating with non-Mormons and anti-Mormons on the Internet for years. That is how I have become good at it! I take on big dudes. They don’t stand much chance against me.

1. Try to avoid using absolutes such as “always” and “never.” They do very little to enhance your arguments. They tend to show rigidity in your thinking, which is frequently perceived as a lack of respect for your prospects. Absolutes also act as an invitation for your prospect to poke holes in your statements, since nearly everything has an exception.

1. Respect your prospects as children of God, even while politely disagreeing with them. The first step in evangelizing is not to beat on your prospects, but to listen and respect them. Show a respectful understanding of what they are saying, even if you completely disagree, and they will usually perceive your respect for their worth as children of God, Then you can ask questions that will make them think and know that your questions will be given serious consideration.

Instead of :tsktsk: -]that is not Old Testament theology/-] try saying “We understand the Old Testament to mean something different. I’d like to share it with you.”

Instead of :banghead: -]You seem to have very little appreciation for the OT/-] try saying “I think I understand your position, but I feel I must disagree.” :yup:

Instead of :whacky: -]I doubt if you have even read it, or understood what you have read/-] try saying “That’s interesting. Can you show me how you came to that conclusion?”

Trying to do it any other way will get you very little except a bloody nose when they slam the door in your face.

Thank you Nan! I am sure you are right. I will take your advice on board. But don’t forget that when you are debating on the Internet, you are not interacting with people face to face. You don’t get to see their facial expressions, gestures, body language etc. which enables you to judge their mood and tailor your replies specifically to them. I also don’t have the time to read the posts very carefully. I tend to read and reply to them very quickly, which means that I often miss the finer points of the psychology of the writer. Therefore when your posts get mixed up with the posts of such characters as weatherman, and a whole bunch of wicked apostates who post here, it is hard to distinguish between each. One tends to adopt a blanket style of response to them all. And besides all of that, I am here to convert Catholics to Mormonism. This is my way of doing it. If you think I am not doing it right, the answer is simple; you don’t have to join!

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

Sorry Nan, but I don’t read that into the text. Besides, how do you know that the Israelites at that time were so sick and diseased ridden as you suggest? Did you have a time machine to go there and look? Is there anything written in the Bible to suggest this? You are making a lot of assumptions without evidence to back it up. It is true that modern medical advancement enables us to live free of diseases most of our lives; but this has only been a recent phenomenon. 100 years ago people didn’t have any of that. But old photographs, paintings, and portraits of people that have survived from them don’t exactly show them as being disease ridden. Their younger folks look as good and healthy as in our generation. Life expectancy among them was lower, that is true; because if they caught a serious disease they often died from it, and didn’t live to tell the tale. Infant mortality among them was very high. But once they survived that, there is nothing to suggest that they all looked unhealthy and diseased ridden as you suggest.

You’re right about how people looked in paintings. Before photography was invented, nearly everyone in a painting was beautiful. And now anyone with a PC can use digital editing and make their photograph do the same things a painter used to do!

It doesn’t mean I have pretty teeth, a smooth chin, and no warts. But in my portrait I can pretend I do. After all, people are going to look on my portrait for generations and know me through it, so why wouldn’t I want to look my best? And in a digital photograph I can do it all by myself.

About the only photograph we have from older days is The Shroud of Turin. Not everyone believes it is true, but no one can explain it. Read more at this weblink.

shroud.com/tinyface.gif

Nan

 

[zerinus]

You’re right about how people looked in paintings. Before photography was invented, nearly everyone in a painting was beautiful. And now anyone with a PC can use digital editing and make their photograph do the same things a painter used to do!

It doesn’t mean I have pretty teeth, a smooth chin, and no warts. But in my portrait I can pretend I do. After all, people are going to look on my portrait for generations and know me through it, so why wouldn’t I want to look my best? And in a digital photograph I can do it all by myself.

About the only photograph we have from older days is The Shroud of Turin. Not everyone believes it is true, but no one can explain it. Read more at this weblink.

shroud.com/tinyface.gif

Nan

Okay, early painters might have lied, but early photographs didn’t. Photography was invented in 1820s. There are many photographs surviving from the mid eighties. I did a search in Google using the search term “early photographs,” and found many examples. Here are some of them. If you have the patience you can search and find many more. Do these look sick and disease ridden to you?
mhs.ox.ac.uk/features/ephotos/dtypes.htm#dagus
mhs.ox.ac.uk/features/ephotos/ctypes.htm#ctypes
llgc.org.uk/dm/dm0035.htm
llgc.org.uk/fga/fga_s03.htm
earlyphotographs.com/
cycleback.com/1800s/earlyphotos.htm

zerinus

P.S. I know about the Shroud of Turin. I saw a TV documentary about it quite a while ago. Very interesting; but does not seem to be authentic.

 

[Allweather]

And besides all of that, I am here to convert Catholics to Mormonism. This is my way of doing it. If you think I am not doing it right, the answer is simple; you don’t have to join!

zerinus

So, how’s that working out for you, Zerinus? Having any luck at all?

A few weeks ago you denied being here to evangelize into your false cult. You said you merely love to debate religion, because “it is fun.”

Of course, we all knew that was a big lie, and now you have admitted it outright.

 

[Allweather]

I also don’t have the time to read the posts very carefully. I tend to read and reply to them very quickly, which means that I often miss the finer points of the psychology of the writer.
zerinus

Well. HULLO!!! You don’t just miss the fine points as a result of your failure to read, Zerinus. You miss all of the major points as well. “Psychology of the writer.” Indeed. You make me laugh.

 

[zerinus]

Okay, early painters might have lied, but early photographs didn’t. Photography was invented in 1820s. There are many photographs surviving from the mid eighties. I did a search in Google using the search term “early photographs,” and found many examples. Here are some of them. If you have the patience you can search and find many more. Do these look sick and disease ridden to you?
mhs.ox.ac.uk/features/ephotos/dtypes.htm#dagus
mhs.ox.ac.uk/features/ephotos/ctypes.htm#ctypes
llgc.org.uk/dm/dm0035.htm
llgc.org.uk/fga/fga_s03.htm
earlyphotographs.com/
cycleback.com/1800s/earlyphotos.htm

zerinus

P.S. I know about the Shroud of Turin. I saw a TV documentary about it quite a while ago. Very interesting; but does not seem to be authentic.

Okay, I did a bit more search for you, and found a few more. I found these by using the search term “old photos” in Google:

familyoldphotos.com/3c/1-unknown.htm
photo-ark.co.uk/html/login.php

The next one is particularly nice, because it gives their dates. It has a section for 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, etc. Scroll to the bottom of the page to see them:

familychronicle.com/dating.htm

zerinus