Explanation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mwerner

Joined
Apr 23, 2002
Messages
5,354
Several threads about "prayers and smoke" for a loved one who's ill or whatever.

I understand prayer....But what's the "smoke" about? Some American Indian thing?
 
American Indian...Buddhist...Catholic...Christian...Hindu...Many religions use smoke of some sort in their prayers and religious ceremonies. Many believe that the smoke carries your prayers heavenward.
 
From a Christian perspective, the "smoke" reference can be accepted as referring to Rev 8:4 "The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel's hand." or Psalm 141:2, "Let my prayer rise before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice."

But, it is important to understand that, from a Christian perspective, "smoke" is not prayer. Revelation talks about the smoke of the incense AND the prayers TOGETHER, but yet as separate things. Psalm 141 uses a simile, a figure of speech, a comparision; it does not say, "let the incense be my prayers," but does say, "let my prayers rise before you LIKE incense."

Some religions believe (falsely and to their own detraction, imho) that burning certian mixtures of certain materials creates a smoke that, in-and-of-itself, has a special -- one might even say magical -- power. Other religions belive (falsely and to their own detraction, imho) that just burning something and sending the smoke up to heaven is an act of prayer in-and-of-itself. For a Christian, there is no power in the smoke. The power is in prayer. Jesus is well-recorded to have prayed. Nowhere is he recorded has having burned any incense or sage grass or anything else as an act of prayer. (Off hand, I can think of only one reference to Jesus burning anything and what was burned is not recorded, but it was burned to cook some fish, not as an act of prayer.)

In the Christian practice, we sometimes use physical symbols to focus our attention. This is, for the most part, extra-biblical; but that doesn't make it wrong per se, though we do need to be careful to recognize and separate those things which are biblical from those which are of human institution. The use of incense to symbolize prayer and focus us on prayer is good. But, the incense and its smoke are just that, a symbol and tool to focus us on prayer.
 
I always interpreted it a a Native American thing
One tribe for example would blow smoke into the head of a bear they just killed
A ceremonial puff of smoke..........

I'm glad someone else besides me didn't know what the smoke part meant........:eek:
 
Pretty much every religion of humanity has some form of sacred smoke/incense in their ceremonies.
 
Gollnick said:
Some religions believe (falsely and to their own detraction, imho) that burning certian mixtures of certain materials creates a smoke that, in-and-of-itself, has a special -- one might even say magical -- power. Other religions belive (falsely and to their own detraction, imho) that just burning something and sending the smoke up to heaven is an act of prayer in-and-of-itself.
.
Click to expand...

Golnick please explain what is "falsely and to their own detraction, imho"?
 
"Smoke" on Bladeforums came from Himalayan Imports discussions, and was originally a Buddhist reference there.
 
Bufford said:
Golnick please explain what is "falsely and to their own detraction, imho"?
Click to expand...

I think he means we're a bunch of pagans and we're going to Hell for worshipping false gods. At least those of us who don't identify as Christian, or his brand of Christian.

Frank
 
Bufford said:
Golnick please explain what is "falsely and to their own detraction, imho"?
Click to expand...

Sword and Shield said:
Ditto. If they believe it is a prayer, then it is, regardless of the Christian stand.
Click to expand...

SilverFoxKnows said:
I think he means we're a bunch of pagans and we're going to Hell for worshipping false gods. At least those of us who don't identify as Christian, or his brand of Christian.

Frank
Click to expand...
Yeah pretty obvious. He makes it clear it is his opinion. Obviously many who subscribe to one religion would believe the other available brands would be false. Nothing new, been going on since we had language, if not before.

===
Fire is man's first and greatest tool to free him from the boundaries of animals. Smoke is a symbol of fire. A very appropriate symbol is smoke for important interpersonal honoring practices. :)
 
For those of you who don't understand the conventional shorthands used on this forum, imho means "In my humble opinion." Notice, also, that the statement in question was made parenthetically, enclosed within parentheses, and, therefore, not to be considered part of the main sentence but to be read as a side comment upon it. Tricky punctuation can be so confusing, I know.

My statement is just that: my opinion and offered humbly with and accepting the knowledge that others might not agree with it. This stands, imho, in stark contrast to others here who are offering their opinions in a less-than-humble way.

As for "falsely and to their own detraction", I think that, once you understand that the m in imho stands for my and the o stands for opinion, becomes quite clear. But, for those who can't put it together themselves, I will spell it out: it is my humble opinion that the beliefs in question are false and those who practice them do so to their own detraction.

Once again, the o is for opinion.

Prayer is a matter of faith. Faith is... well... faith is the evidence of things unseen. Matters of faith can not be proven. This is why I offer my statements as humble opinion recongizing and accepting that others might not share those opinions.
 
"For those of you who don't understand the conventional shorthands used on this forum, imho means "In my humble opinion." Notice, also, that the statement in question was made parenthetically, enclosed within parentheses, and, therefore, not to be considered part of the main sentence but to be read as a side comment upon it. Tricky punctuation can be so confusing, I know."

Nothing confusing about it at all. Your first post was arrogant and condescending. Your second post, more so. I know "humble" can be so confusing. I, myself, frequently confuse it for "self-righteous" and "superior". I don't know about the others but I resent it when people tell me "imho" that they have all the answers and if I disagree with them I'm somehow deluded or immoral. I reject spiritual blackmail, of any stripe. Prefacing an insult with "imho" doesn't make it less of an insult. Did you turn this into a religious debate (when Esav's answer would have sufficed) so you could get it moved to Politics where everyone has to play be your rules or not at all? I guess some people just can't resist an opportunity to harangue the infidels.
 
SilverFoxKnows said:
I don't know about the others but I resent it when people tell me "imho" that they have all the answers and if I disagree with them I'm somehow deluded or immoral.
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever saying "deluded" or "immoral." I think you read that in.

I don't believe that I said anything about you at all. In fact, my post was not directed to you nor was it in response to a post you made inasmuchas I made my post before you posted anything in this thread. So, if you read my post as being personally directed toward you, well that can be nothing but your own egocentricity at work.

Prefacing an insult with "imho" doesn't make it less of an insult.
Click to expand...

No. What it does do is mark it clearly as opinion.



Did you turn this into a religious debate
Click to expand...


I didn't turn this into a religious debate.



so you could get it moved to Politics where everyone has to play be your rules or not at all?
Click to expand...

Religion isn't politics. Furthermore, I did not make the rules in the political forum. If you will consult the political forum rules, you will see that they were made by Spark himself.



I guess some people just can't resist an opportunity to harangue the infidels.
Click to expand...

I believe that I'm the one being harangued here. I simply answered the OP's question telling how references to smoke could be interpreted from a christian perspective and how they contrast with other beliefs all without mentioning by name any other person or any other religion.

You could have simply explained your own beliefs and opinions and how they contrast with those of other faiths. But, instead, you elected to attack me personally.
 
You don't see how "falsely and to their own detraction" could be seen as self-righteous or insulting to people not of your faith? I honestly believed you were trying to be antogonistic to other faiths. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions (not sarcastic).
 
As I and the OP were the only posts prior to yours, Gollnick, perhaps there was something in my post which you felt the need to rebute, if so, please explain, if not, nevermind.
 
markksr said:
As I and the OP were the only posts prior to yours, Gollnick, perhaps there was something in my post which you felt the need to rebute, if so, please explain, if not, nevermind.
Click to expand...

Your post was quite fine. I felt that I wanted to expand upon it specifically from a Christian perspective. I had hoped that some American Indians, Buddhists, Hindus, and maybe others might do the same and we could have a very interesting comparision and contrast of the beliefs about the relationship between prayer and smoke in different faiths.

Where there is overt similarity, there can be by the unknowing the assumption of commonality. An unknowing person may assume that because he sees Christians employing smoke in activities of worship and prayer and he also sees Buddhists employing smoke in activities of worship and prayer that Christians and Buddhists have a common belief, that Christianity and Buddhism are just two names for the same thing.

That is why it is necessary to contrast, to show differences and to make those differences clear. This may even include stating your opinions about the beliefs of others. And that necessarily means that others may state their opinions about your beliefs.

I, however, will not threaten to kill you if you insult my prophet.
 
Gollnick said:
Where there is overt similarity, there can be by the unknowing the assumption of commonality. An unknowing person may assume that because he sees Christians employing smoke in activities of worship and prayer and he also sees Buddhists employing smoke in activities of worship and prayer that Christians and Buddhists have a common belief, that Christianity and Buddhism are just two names for the same thing.

That is why it is necessary to contrast, to show differences and to make those differences clear. This may even include stating your opinions about the beliefs of others. And that necessarily means that others may state their opinions about your beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't wish to get into a religious debate as I have a difficult time expressing myself over the internet and it only leads to frustration on my part, but, as you took the time to explain your post (which IMHO was more confrontational than it needed to be for someone who claimed was just trying to initiate friendly debate), I will, with good intentions, respond with these questions:

Why would you insist that only the "unknowing" would assume commonality, maybe, in reality, only the "unknowing" would assume separation?

Is it not possible that these ceremonial and dogmatic differences are nothing more than variations caused by cultural interpretations of the same primal interaction with God?

Why do you feel it is necessary to "contrast" anything,"to show differences", and "to make those differences clear", do you find it so intolerable to accept the possibility that those Buddhists might be praying to the same God as you, after all, there is only one God, and your faith is certainly no greater than theirs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top