http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_beads

Prayer beads are common to almost all religions.

Although there are no scriptural basis for the use of prayer beads or the Rosary in christianity, Catholics and most recently Anglicans use rosaries for prayer and meditation.

According to wiki,

The Desert Fathers of the 3rd to 5th century, used knotted ropes to count prayers, typically the Jesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner". The invention is attributed to Abba Anthony or his associate Saint Pachomius in the 4th century.

Catholics and some Anglicans use the Holy Rosary with 54 + additional 5 beads as prayer beads. The Rosary's name comes from the Latin "rosarium", meaning "rose garden" and is an important and traditional devotion of the Roman Catholic Church, combining prayer and meditation in sequences (called "decades" of an Our Father, 10 Hail Marys, and a Glory Be to the Father, as well as a number of other prayers (such as the Apostle's Creed and the Hail Holy Queen) at the beginning and end. The prayers are accompanied by meditation on the Mysteries, events in the life and ministry of Jesus. This traditional Catholic form of the rosary is attributed to Saint Dominic.[8]


Religious faith being what it is , Miracles and supernatural events are now being attributed to Rosaries.
What else is new?
I am not concerned about the veracity of these supposed miracles.
My main thrust here is to ask the following questions:

1. Does the fact that it is not scriptural not make it Pagan or anti-christian?

2. Is the practice of supplicating to graven images are not forbidden in Christianity?

3. Is it not a form of idolatry?

4. Is the fact that miracles supposedly manifest by using rosaries not occult science, sorcery, black magic or Juju?

5. Since nearly all religions use Rosaries, what makes the Christian Rosary special?

6. what is the difference between a Rosary and a Talisman? In other words, why should a seeker of grace and miracles use a rosary instead of a Talisman?

7. And lastly, Is the use of a man-made devise to affirm and reafirm a prayer not evidence that the faithful is already doubtful about the efficacy of ordinary prayer?

Following thread,doubt u will get d answer or d result u want.

If you are searchin for answer,go to seminary,be a priest

Its not God, his son or messenger.

Its not even the god-mother.

Its the rosary now

A rosary is a good catholic invention

It works as fashion for catholics
It works as a way for the church to make money from sales of the rosaries
It works as a way of putting maths to religion- counting prayers in tens (decades)- you count the beads as you pray
It works as a way of keeping catholics focus on repeting and chanting* (saying hail mary ten times)


A lie told repeatedly often becomes truth.

I believe in god the father all mighty....
Hail mary, full of grace.....
Glory be to the father and to the son...



When you repeat these prayers, you believe them. It locks your mind to confirmation bias from repeating. Good way to keep sheep repeating--

"one God gooood"
"more gods baaad"

plaetton:
1. Does the fact that it is not scriptural not make it Pagan or anti-christian?

The Rosary in itself is not found in Sacred scriptures but the prayers that constitute the Rosary is firmly enshrined in it.

The truth here is that one can pray the Rosary without having the 'beads' and as such what truly make up the Rosary is the prayers that is said, though the beads can become a sacramental if duely blessed by an ordained minister.

Making a prayer that is based on Sacred scriptures can hardly pass for being Anti-Christian or Pagan. Anyways, Christianity does not have its bases strictly on the written words in Sacred scriptures.

plaetton:
2. Is the practice of supplicating to graven images are not forbidden in Christianity?

The practice of supplicating to graven images is forbidden and any Catholic who does so sin's against the first commandment. However, the first commandment does not forbid the making or use of images for worship of the one true God.

plaetton:
3. Is it not a form of idolatry?

No, it is not. It only becomes idolatory when one allows it take the place of God in his or her life. The Roasay helps us to be closer to God and not the other way round.

plaetton:
4. Is the fact that miracles supposedly manifest by using rosaries not occult science, sorcery, black magic or Juju?

Nope! It only indicates that God answers prayers.

plaetton:
5. Since nearly all religions use Rosaries, what makes the Christian Rosary special?

It's link with Christ and his blessed Mother, Mary.

plaetton:
6. what is the difference between a Rosary and a Talisman? In other words, why should a seeker of grace and miracles use a rosary instead of a Talisman?

A talisman is basically magic. The Rosary is not.

plaetton:
7. And lastly, Is the use of a man-made devise to affirm and reafirm a prayer not evidence that the faithful is already doubtful about the efficacy of ordinary prayer?

Nope! The fact that a form of prayer is special does not undermine other forms of prayer. Every prayer is unique in its own way but the Rosary is a prayer that helps us recall the mysteries of our faith as Christians hence its special place.

[quote author=plaetton]

Religious faith being what it is , Miracles and supernatural events are now being attributed to Rosaries.
What else is new?
I am not concerned about the veracity of these supposed miracles.
My main thrust here is to ask the following questions:

We should be concerned about the veracity of the s'posed miracles because therein lies the crux of the matter:

rosary prayers are a waste of time because the so called miracles can be explained by science.

e.g.:
one of the rosary miracles is that a group of jesuit priests survived the A-bomb in Hiroshima.

-the destroyed church close to the house where the priests lived may have actually shielded the house.
-they conveniently leave out of the story the fact there were other survivors who were even closer to the epicentre!

striktlymi:

The Rosary in itself is not found in Sacred scriptures but the prayers that constitute the Rosary is firmly enshrined in it.

So when was the Rosary introduced, or should I ask, from which Pagan Religion was it borrowed from, and why?
Are the scriptures in sufficient without aid from Pagan practices?

striktlymi:

The truth here is that one can pray the Rosary without having the 'beads' and as such what truly make up the Rosary is the prayers that is said, though the beads can become a sacramental if duely blessed by an ordained minister.

So what is the purpose of the beads then?
So once an ordained minister blesses a bead, it becomes sacremental? You mean sacred, imbued with magical powers? So ordained minister is the equivalent of juju men?
So even secret pedophile ordainedned minister( can you really know?) can supposedly bless a bead and render it sacremental?
Ok o.

striktlymi:

Making a prayer that is based on Sacred scriptures can hardly pass for being Anti-Christian or Pagan. Anyways, Christianity does not have its bases strictly on the written words in Sacred scriptures.

It is anti-christian when prayer are focused on, or is aided with graven images. Which version of the 10 commandments are you reading?

Aside from written words and sacred scriptures kindly tell me where or in what else is Christianity based on.

striktlymi:

The practice of supplicating to graven images is forbidden and any Catholic who does so sin's against the first commandment. However, the first commandment does not forbid the making or use of images for worship of the one true God.

What ?
What kind of spin is this?
Please read your statement again. Your second statement clearly contradict your first statement.

I respect you much, otherwise I would called you a funny name.
But please what is the difference between "Thou shall not make Graven Images " ,and , making images for worship of God?
Some kind Schizophrenia?

striktlymi:

No, it is not. It only becomes idolatory when one allows it take the place of God in his or her life. The Rosary helps us to be closer to God and not the other way round.

In other words , Idolatory can be justified, or simply called another name, and is at the discretion of the believer?
So if the Rosary is assumed to help one become closer to god, then the commandment against idolatory can be waived?
Hhhmm!

Schizophrenia again?

striktlymi:

Nope! It only indicates that God answers prayers.

Can getting results by occult science, Juju, black magic , etc, not also be seen as God answering prayers?
After all, God, as the omnipotent puppet master of the universe, would not allow occult practices to yield desired results if he did not personal sanction or approve them.

striktlymi:

It's link with Christ and his blessed Mother, Mary.

And pray tell, where did you get the portrait images of Jesus and his Mary from? Did anyone have their portraits or are the images imagined?
In other words, both portraits are figments of someone's imagination?

Let me remind you of the 1st Commandment, in case you are confused.


"You shall have no other gods before me"

And the 2nd commandment:


"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"



In a general sense, idolatry is the paying of divine honor to any created thing, including the beads with the engraved images of Jesus or Mary or the crucifix.

striktlymi:


A talisman is basically magic. The Rosary is not.

What?
This is hilarious.
What is the difference between, miracles, supernatural intervention and magic?

striktlymi:

Nope! The fact that a form of prayer is special does not undermine other forms of prayer.

Yes it does.
Prayer is not a tangible item like Aspirin , where we can have Regular strength or extra-strength. lol
Prayer is an all or non kind of palliative.
So, special prayer suggest doubts about the efficacy of ordinary prayer.

striktlymi:

Every prayer is unique in its own way but the Rosary is a prayer that helps us recall the mysteries of our faith as Christians hence its special place.

Really?
So after all scriptures, all the blood sacrifice of Jesus and all the matrys , the Christian faith now depends on an artificial contraption to recall the mysteries of the Christian faith?.
What an epic waste.
Lol.

Logicboy03: A rosary is a good catholic invention

It works as fashion for catholics
It works as a way for the church to make money from sales of the rosaries
It works as a way of putting maths to religion- counting prayers in tens (decades)- you count the beads as you pray
It works as a way of keeping catholics focus on repeting and chanting* (saying hail mary ten times)


A lie told repeatedly often becomes truth.

I believe in god the father all mighty....
Hail mary, full of grace.....
Glory be to the father and to the son...



When you repeat these prayers, you believe them. It locks your mind to confirmation bias from repeating. Good way to keep sheep repeating--

"one God gooood"
"more gods baaad"

It is also the perfect brain-washing technique.
The mind is very very malleable.
So, repeated prayers and phrases get indelibly imprinted in the mind of the victim.
In simple psychology, it is called auto-suggestion.

It is like a lobotomy without the surgical scalpels.

plaetton:

So when was the Rosary introduced, or should I ask, from which Pagan Religion was it borrowed from, and why?
Are the scriptures in sufficient without aid from Pagan practices?

I take the above as an attempt at sarcasm.

plaetton:
So what is the purpose of the beads then?

Given the unique make-up of the Rosary, the beads help us to keep tab on the number of prayers said, considering that the minds of men is known to wander when engaged in some mental activity. It also helps us focus on the mystery we are expected to recall while at each decade of the Rosary. This is excluding its value as a sacramental.

plaetton:
So once an ordained minister blesses a bead, it becomes sacremental?

Yes!!!

An object of worship cannot become sacred without it being blessed and consecrated.

plaetton:
You mean sacred, imbued with magical powers? So ordained minister is the equivalent of juju men?

No!!!

plaetton:
So even secret pedophile ordainedned minister( can you really know?) can supposedly bless a bead and render it sacremental?
Ok o.

Yes!!!

God does not always take away the powers given to an individual just because the person becomes rebellious. A classic example would be the case of Lucifer. Despite his disobedience, God still allowed him retain his powers. The difference would be that, the powers may not be as effective as it used to because the individual is cut off from God.

plaetton:
It is anti-christian when prayer are focused on, or is aided with graven images.

I quite agree with you on that in the sense that anything that takes the place of God in the life of any Christian is not appropriate. However, The Rosary draws people closer to God and as such, it is not an end in itself.

plaetton:
Which version of the 10 commandments are you reading?

The one Jesus summarised. Love for God and neighbour. I believe they are just two.

plaetton:
Aside from written words and sacred scriptures kindly tell me where or in what else is Christianity based on.

Christianity is based solely on Christ. The written words are just an aspect of Christ.

plaetton:
What ?
What kind of spin is this?
Please read your statement again. Your second statement clearly contradict your first statement.

Why not demonstrate how they contradict?

plaetton:
I respect you much, otherwise I would called you a funny name.
But please what is the difference between "Thou shall not make Graven Images " ,and , making images for worship of God?
Some kind Schizophrenia?

When one makes an image for the worship of other gods then the individual commits a sin against the first commandment e.g the image made in honour of Baal. But if an image is made and consecrated for the worship of the one true God then that can't be categorized as a graven image e.g the Arch of the covenant.

plaetton:
In other words , Idolatory can be justified, or simply called another name, and is at the discretion of the believer?

No!!!

Not every believer has the ability of consecration. If an image is not blessed and set aside for worship purposes, it cannot be regarded as a sacramental and as such it has no spiritual relevance. Only ordained ministers have this special privilege.

plaetton:
So if the Rosary is assumed to help one become closer to god, then the commandment against idolatory can be waived?
Hhhmm!
Schizophrenia again?

No!!!

The commandment against idolatory cannot be waived by any man. Idolatory is wrong and is strongly not recommended for any Christian. There is a way one would use the Rosary and instead of it being a blessing to the individual, it would become a curse.

plaetton:
Can getting results by occult science, Juju, black magic , etc, not also be seen as God answering prayers?
After all, God, as the omnipotent puppet master of the universe, would not allow occult practices to yield desired results if he did not personal sanction or approve them.

Yes and no!

If we look at it in terms of the fact that every power (even that of Satan) has its source from God then I can agree with you but when we view it in terms of what God has explicitly forbade then those practices would not be of God.

plaetton:
And pray tell, where did you get the portrait images of Jesus and his Mary from? Did anyone have their portraits or are the images imagined?
In other words, both portraits are figments of someone's imagination?

Any portrait of Jesus, Mary or any of the saints that is not blessed has no spiritual relevance. It matters not, to a large extent, how a portrait is made. What matters is whether it is blessed or not by an ordained minister.

plaetton:
Let me remind you of the 1st Commandment, in case you are confused.


"You shall have no other gods before me"

And the 2nd commandment:


"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

No need to remind me. The commandments are love for God and neighbour. Idolatory is directly against the first.

plaetton:
In a general sense, idolatry is the paying of divine honor to any created thing, including the beads with the engraved images of Jesus or Mary or the crucifix.

Now you are getting it. The use of the Rosary is not the same as paying divine honour to it.

plaetton:
What?
This is hilarious.
What is the difference between, miracles, supernatural intervention and magic?

One is from God while the other is from 'spirits' God has forbade us to liaise with.

plaetton:
Yes it does.
Prayer is not a tangible item like Aspirin , where we can have Regular strength or extra-strength. lol
Prayer is an all or non kind of palliative.
So, special prayer suggest doubts about the efficacy of ordinary prayer.


Really?
So after all scriptures, all the blood sacrifice of Jesus and all the matrys , the Christian faith now depends on an artificial contraption to recall the mysteries of the Christian faith?.
What an epic waste.
Lol.

Yes, some persons tend to get things confused. Some even believe that the Rosary should be higher than the mass but the truth is that the mass is the highest form of prayer that can be said by any Christian and the Rosary is a unique brand because of its focus on the Gospel.

Bump

Arguing with xtians is a waste of time. They ignore your points and affirm their convictions no matter what.

Alfa Seltzer: Arguing with xtians is a waste of time. They ignore your points and affirm their convictions no matter what.

I remember once, Plaetton opened a thread saying any Christian who claims to love God were liars.

I asked him a simple question.

"What do you mean by love?"

He ignored and continued to affirm his convictions.

Now you accuse the Christians of what Atheists are guilty of.

Hypocrisy!

italo:

I remember once, Plaetton opened a thread saying any Christian who claims to love God were liars.

I asked him a simple question.

"What do you mean by love?"

He ignored and continued to affirm his convictions.

Now you accuse the Christians of what Atheists are guilty of.

Hypocrisy!

Laughable.
You guys make the claim that you love god. Then you guys turn around and ask atheists to define love.
If you claim to love god, you should know the meaning of what you claim.

Alfa Seltzer:

Laughable.
You guys make the claim that you love god. Then you guys turn around and ask atheists to define love.
If you claim to love god, you should know the meaning of what you claim.

In that thread it was Plaetton that made a claim, not any Christian.

He claimed we dont love God.

He even claimed something like 'we dont love our fellow man.'

On what basis does he make such claims if he cant define love?

italo:

In that thread it was Plaetton that made a claim, not any Christian.

He claimed we dont love God.

He even claimed something like 'we dont love our fellow man.'

On what basis does he make such claims if he cant define love?

On the basis of your claim that you love god.

Alfa Seltzer:

On the basis of your claim that you love god.

Yet he doesnt know what love is.

How do you go about negating/affirming what you dont even know/cant define?

Does it make sense to tell you you arent sane if I cant define "sane?"

italo:

Yet he doesnt know what love is.

How do you go about negating/affirming what you dont even know/cant define?

Does it make sense to tell you you arent sane if I cant define "sane?"

If I claim sanity, I should know the definition and not depend on you to define it for me.

But does it make sense for me to say you arent sane when I cant define "sane?"

Alfa Seltzer:

If I claim sanity, I should know the definition and not depend on you to define it for me.

italo: But does it make sense for me to say you arent sane when I cant define "sane?"

Why do you need to define sane?

I never said I need to. But I need to know the meaning of "sane" to affirm that you're not sane. No?

Alfa Seltzer:

Why do you need to define sane?

italo: I never said I need to. But I need to know the meaning of "sane" to affirm that you're not sane. No?

If there is one universal meaning of sane, then it should be obvious to everybody, and nobody will require your specific definition. If you start asking for subjective definitions, you depart from that of the original proposer who affirmed his sanity.

Precisely! I think Plaetton knew he deviated from the definition of love of at least certain Christians. That's why he couldn't say much but keep ascerting his convictions.

It is hypocrisy to only notice when Christians do same.

Alfa Seltzer:

If there is one universal meaning of sane, then it should be obvious to everybody, and nobody will require your specific definition. If you start asking for subjective definitions, you depart from that of the original proposer who affirmed his sanity.

italo: Precisely! I think Plaetton knew he deviated from the definition of love of at least certain Christians. That's why he couldn't say much but keep ascerting his convictions.

It is hypocrisy to only notice when Christians do same.

He didn't deviate as he didn't propose any alternative to the original. He just said that the proposition was false. The definition of the proposer remains the same but the validity was doubted.

You seem to confuse something. When somebody disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that that person has an alternative proposition.

Alfa Seltzer:

He didn't deviate as he didn't propose any alternative to the original. He just said that the proposition was false. The definition of the proposer remains the same but the validity was doubted.

You seem to confuse something. When somebody disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that that person has an alternative proposition.

You seem to confuse something. When someone makes an ascertion, he should be certain or near certain of what he's saying.

You dont ascert what you're ignorant of.

Except you don't know the meaning of "ascert."

Isnt that how many of you Atheists operate? Even when you dont understand a thing, you continue to affirm your position.

Exactly what you blame Christians for.

@Italo
If you don't know what love means, then simple google it.
I think it quite silly and mischievious for you to insist on my own definition of love. If by now at your age , you do not understand the meaning of love, that is your problem, not mine.

When I post here , I am under the assurance that readers are capable of reading and understanding simple english.
If the best you can do is claim ignorance of the meaning of love, then it's copout, as would be expected from a conflicted religious mind.

plaetton: @Italo
If you don't know what love means, then simple google it.
I think it quite silly and mischievious for you to insist on my own definition of love. If by now at your age , you do not understand the meaning of love, that is your problem, not mine.

When I post here , I am under the assurance that readers are capable of reading and understanding simple english.
If the best you can do is claim ignorance of the meaning of love, then it's copout, as would be expected from a conflicted religious mind.

Oh please. Your argument was baseless.

How could you prove that assertion without telling what you meant by love.

You Atheists ask us to explain every detail of our statements all the time...but you cant explain as little as "love."

italo:

Oh please. Your argument was baseless.

How could you prove that assertion without telling what you meant by love.

You Atheists ask us to explain every detail of our statements all the time...but you cant explain as little as "love."

Every other poster who posted on that thread knew the meaning of love, except you.
That is your problem, not mine.

plaetton:

Every other poster who posted on that thread knew the meaning of love, except you.
That is your problem, not mine.

Except you.

It's you who could say, not me or any other poster.

The rosary are prayers and a talisman is an object so if you can't see the difference then you are blind . Now as for the beads a rosary is long sometimes we pray more than one rosary you think it is easy to not get confused sometimes you think you have already odon the 10haill Mary when you have only done 8 or 9 so the Church(the only one ,apostolic) came up with a brilliant idea the beads to help us in our prayers it is fastidious to count with your fingers and definitively not elegant. Tomorrow you heretics will tell us that kneeling is pagan blah blah

italo:

You seem to confuse something. When someone makes an ascertion, he should be certain or near certain of what he's saying.

You dont ascert what you're ignorant of.

Except you don't know the meaning of "ascert."

Isnt that how many of you Atheists operate? Even when you dont understand a thing, you continue to affirm your position.

Exactly what you blame Christians for.

Exactly!
If you assert that you love god, you should be certain of what love means.