Form of meditation, been shown to enable people to have an altered state of consciousness . Overall, with church goers and worshipers there's been seen a correlation with longer lifespan in part because of the socialization portion for church and in old age such organizations also help decrease depression among the elderly since they well get out and meditate and socialize.
Religion has existed for thousands of years, it's not going to go away. While you could argue something like Bhuddism is better because it focuses prayer into direct meditation and training the human brain which helps with emotional control and so forth as some parts of the brain do grow and change.
But I do think the communal nature for churches is something that atheism will need to find a way to replace, but then there are people who do practice rituals but do not believe in them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Prayer is no substitute for psychological treatment.
-Psychological Treatment is no substitute for Prayer, so why settle for one when you can have them both.
Psychological Treatment is both quantifiable and quantifiable, and prayer is neither. If psychological couldn't offer real-world results, why bother having it? If prayer offered testable and verifiable results then OP's question would have not been asked not only by him, but by a great number of people who also wonder why other people pray.
If the context of praying is 'to do nothing but talk to your self' then yes, treatment is not a substitution -- it's the only approach to a resolve; extended sessions of talking to and answering oneself cannot have beneficial psychological properties.
If the context of prayer is 'letting god talk care of it as god sees fit', then we regress back to the original question - why bother praying? If god has a divine plan and all goes according to it, then what a great conceit it is for us fallible beings to challenge his omniscience.
Here's something of interest, which I think is highly relevant to this discussion.
For all that we often consider as religion [sans the simple gods of nature and house gods of simple folk], evidence suggests that the origins of religion came from the Pharaohs. If indeed it's true that our systems of religion [all of which clearly man-made] came from the pharaohs, isn't it also of great interest that their doctors were the first known brain surgeons? Isn't it interesting that they understood that the brain is largely a chemical organ and by influencing which chemicals are produced and in which quantities that a person can become normalized or longer suffer debilitating migraines? Isn't it interesting that to cure some people, they would remove pieces of the skull to reduce internal pressure or to induce pressure against a gland to produce more of a particular chemical?
The very people who brought religion in to this world didn't use it to 'fix' psychological problems - though do many religious folks of both today and yesterday, but rather they relied on science [hypothesis, testing and verification] to understand the brain to 'fix' it to work better?
Having established that I don't believe He's omniscient or omnipresent, I'm not sure why you'd assume He wouldn't want input on His decisions from the people He loves. Which is everyone.
Well, it doesn't exactly take an omniscient being to figure out that you shouldn't treat black people like cursed pariahs. Seems like maybe a god, omniscient or not, could have handled figuring that one out before the 1970s without a bunch of people telling him how confusing it was in Brazil.
I'm quite interested in the research which demonstrates an altered state of consciousness from meditation -- where did you find this?
Humans are social creatures, so it makes good sense for us to keep interacting with one another; this hasn't a thing to do religion or non religion. Although it's interesting to notice the clear-cut winners in the life expectancy category - Switzerland and Japan. Neither culture has a precedence on religion, and the more prominent religions there aren't Abrahamic. On the other hand, the bottom end of the life expectancy nations are a mess of both poverty and Islam. Largely impoverished nations that aren't nationally associated with a particular Abrahamic religion do tend to have a longer and healthier life expectancy. Though I suspect that this has far less to do with silver-aged sewing circles and much more with the oppressive and brutal religions that are used to enslave, murder and impoverish their own people; all in the name of god.
Form of meditation, been shown to enable people to have an altered state of consciousness . Overall, with church goers and worshipers there's been seen a correlation with longer lifespan in part because of the socialization portion for church and in old age such organizations also help decrease depression among the elderly since they well get out and meditate and socialize.
Religion has existed for thousands of years, it's not going to go away. While you could argue something like Bhuddism is better because it focuses prayer into direct meditation and training the human brain which helps with emotional control and so forth as some parts of the brain do grow and change.
But I do think the communal nature for churches is something that atheism will need to find a way to replace, but then there are people who do practice rituals but do not believe in them.
Hard to tell God that He's immoral, since he's kind of the source of the definitions of morality.
The idea of God being the source of moral truth seems to be to be inextricably bound up with his omniscience, or at least omniscience as concerns moral matters. If the source of moral truth can be wrong about morality, then he couldn't actually have been the source of moral truth in the first place -- there would have to be an anterior system of moral truth in which God's wrong moral claim could be properly recognized as such.
And since you've all but admitted that God has been wrong about some moral issues (the treatment of black people in the LDS church, for instance), it seems that you yourself can't believe that he is the ultimate source of moral truth without risking inconsistency.
I don't pray. I think that if something on the scale of God really exists that it would be arrogant to think he would care about my white-people problems. Religion is a very small part of my life, but I do believe in principles and to an extent karma. I think if I die and there's an afterlife, we'll be pretty cool, even if we don't talk much.
Then again, if someone you care about asks you to help them pray because of some important thing like a sick/dying friend, I don't see why you wouldn't humor them by keeping it in your thoughts.
It only requires empathy for one treat their fellow human and non-humans with a sense of compassion, dignity and worth. Empathy doesn't bring power or wealth, so naturally it's in short supply in religious leadership circles.
If god is neither omniscient nor omnipresent, then that being fails to be god, as both qualities are absolutely required for a god.
Having a god that isn't omnipresent is quite convenient for a paradigm of power and control actually, because then people are empowered to 'act on his behalf'. And as history has taught us - Christians and Muslims alike - acts on the behalf of god are genocide, rape, plunder, pillaging and torture. Hindu's through-out history, on the other hand, have exerted great pain and suffering only against other groups of people attempting to invade their land. Hard to hold such a thing against a person defending their home and family, while in contrast, it was most often the Catholics doing to invading, looting, raping, genociding, slaving, etc. Then, of course, it's declared that the greatest-high-Catholic -the Pope - is both infallible and anything / everything that he says is the binding word of god; I suppose that Jesus really is his homeboy.
One needs read only the first book of the bible to understand this, though further reading will greatly enforce this malevolence. With all of this anti-Islam rhetoric coming from both Catholics and Christians now a days, so many seem ignorant of the crusades -- acts which make modern day Muslim extremists seem like school children wading in the pool.
Having established that I don't believe He's omniscient or omnipresent, I'm not sure why you'd assume He wouldn't want input on His decisions from the people He loves. Which is everyone.
Well, it doesn't exactly take an omniscient being to figure out that you shouldn't treat black people like cursed pariahs. Seems like maybe a god, omniscient or not, could have handled figuring that one out before the 1970s without a bunch of people telling him how confusing it was in Brazil.
Having a god that isn't omnipresent is quite convenient for a paradigm of power and control actually, because then people are empowered to 'act on his behalf'
Exactly. You know who would have trouble figuring out that we shouldn't treat black people like cursed pariahs? Old racist white dudes in Utah. How very convenient that they're the only ones who god's willing to talk to.
Let's distract for a moment, shall we? Please point out both my spelling errors and grammatical flaws -- call it a morbidly curiosity. And by spelling errors, I don't mean words which have varied spelling across the pond. Shall I also point out what I believe to be logical fallacies in both your choice words and expressions, or shall we soldier on?
Now back to the thread.
What is the context of prayer, in your own experience and meaning? Indeed, if you are to submit to either two that I've provided, you would indeed hang yourself as neither promote a positive ground to assert prayer as comparable to treatment, let alone better than it.
This is not rhetorical, I'm looking for the answer.
Prayer is no substitute for psychological treatment.
-Psychological Treatment is no substitute for Prayer, so why settle for one when you can have them both.
Psychological Treatment is both quantifiable and quantifiable, and prayer is neither. If psychological couldn't offer real-world results, why bother having it? If prayer offered testable and verifiable results then OP's question would have not been asked not only by him, but by a great number of people who also wonder why other people pray.
If the context of praying is 'to do nothing but talk to your self' then yes, treatment is not a substitution -- it's the only approach to a resolve; extended sessions of talking to and answering oneself cannot have beneficial psychological properties.
If the context of prayer is 'letting god talk care of it as god sees fit', then we regress back to the original question - why bother praying? If god has a divine plan and all goes according to it, then what a great conceit it is for us fallible beings to challenge his omniscience.
Sadly, there were too many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors for me truly understand what you were trying to say. While I could probably guess my through by making blind assumptions based on what I believe you were trying to say, given the nature of this discussion, it would be akin to providing the rope for you to hang me with.
Prayer is no substitute for psychological treatment.
-Psychological Treatment is no substitute for Prayer, so why settle for one when you can have them both.
Psychological Treatment is both quantifiable and quantifiable, and prayer is neither. If psychological couldn't offer real-world results, why bother having it? If prayer offered testable and verifiable results then OP's question would have not been asked not only by him, but by a great number of people who also wonder why other people pray.
If the context of praying is 'to do nothing but talk to your self' then yes, treatment is not a substitution -- it's the only approach to a resolve; extended sessions of talking to and answering oneself cannot have beneficial psychological properties.
If the context of prayer is 'letting god talk care of it as god sees fit', then we regress back to the original question - why bother praying? If god has a divine plan and all goes according to it, then what a great conceit it is for us fallible beings to challenge his omniscience.
Sadly, there were too many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors for me truly understand what you were trying to say. While I could probably guess my through by making blind assumptions based on what I believe you were trying to say, given the nature of this discussion, it would be akin to providing the rope for you to hang me with.
Are you serious?
Aside from his double-use of the word quantifiable ( where I'm sure he meant "quantitative", or maybe even "qualifiers") I see nothing so wrong with his post that I could not tell exactly what he is getting at.
With the way you responded to my posts, I am forced to believe that the error in understanding, is on you Craig.
Really, his post is easily understood by anyone with more than a 7th grade grasp on English and Philosophy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Hard to tell God that He's immoral, since he's kind of the source of the definitions of morality. But to your point, yes, I do actually believe that part of praying to God is questioning the scriptures and how they pertain to modern life.
God could only be the source of morality if there were absolutely such a thing as god, and that god had without disprove given us the rules to live and love one another by.
The fact that both cultures and religions of past & present don't agree on a single set of rules does well to clout the notion that 'god created morality' with great skepticism. How could god give one set of rules to one people and a seemingly contradictory list to another?
If god were a malevolent and pernicious bully that gained great enjoyment by watching the people of his world constantly suffer then yes, the notion of god derived morality would make sense and match well to what happens in reality.
If god were a loving, warm and generous god, then wouldn't it have made more sense for him to lay down such morality as __all people are created equal and are of equal merit, worth and value__? Would not each life be just as unique, precious and splendid as the next? If the Abrhamic god is to be considered, then he has sure made it clear that some men are to be rulers, some are meant to be slaughtered, some are meant to be slaves and even children of an opposing tribe are fair game to suffer the greatest of cruelties too. Indeed, he has prescribed ways for both slaves and slave owners to behave.
The names and lineages of men are of great accord and shall be inscribed for all generations to know, and generations will be known by their forefathers. Women, on the other hand, are at-best worth as much as a dog, but in a great number of cases they are worth much less. A man can take many women onto him self and he is still just and good in god's eyes, but if a women is to even take a second man on to her, then she is a whore and is to be punished by death. Sacrificing your own children to god is also looked upon as having great faith and devotion. This 'morality' is clear from Genesis all the way to revelations and even in the books that the Ecclesiastes choose to omit from their holy scriptures.
Indeed, anyone that might be moral in our own judgment would NEVER consider murdering their own children, nor the children of someone else. Only religion or insanity could ever foster such evil. Anyone truly moral would never see a woman as being less than a dog or less than man. They would know [believe isn't the right word] that woman is in most regards mans equal, and all other regards his superior in that she has the ability to conceive and create life, not to mention the ability to shoulder far greater burdens than an average man can. All Abrahamic religions gone through great effort to dehumanize and devalue women, it's sickening to read the many stories of the Bible in how everything is always about the human with the *****. This disregard for woman improves a little with the new testament, but it clear that she is still a far cry from being anything remotely equal.
So if our sense in the value of women is that they are indeed great, then clearly what-ever-it-is that helps to define our morals doesn't derive from the scriptures of an ancient desert-dwelling farm culture of the Middle East. If the idea of murdering children bothers us down to the very essence and core of our being, then again, or sense of morality does not come from the religion. If we can look at another man who's physical form expresses different phenotypic traits than ours and not think of him as odd, different, less than us.. then indeed, we don't derive morality from religion.
Religion provides all the answers for out-group hostility, and few for seeing each other exactly as we are – A conscience being with feelings, ambitions, hopes, dreams, loves and desires, all wrapped in different packaging.
But then again, if we made the whole god thing up in the first place, we'd need to adjust and tweak the 'morality' past as the zeitgeist moves on.
Having a god that isn't omnipresent is quite convenient for a paradigm of power and control actually, because then people are empowered to 'act on his behalf'
Exactly. You know who would have trouble figuring out that we shouldn't treat black people like cursed pariahs? Old racist white dudes in Utah. How very convenient that they're the only ones who god's willing to talk to.
Well, ya know, even old racist white dudes from Utah need a hobby in between managing 12 wives.
The Catechism of the Episcopal Church defines prayer as "responding to God, by thought and deeds, with or without words."
It describes seven different types of prayer:
Adoration, defined as "the lifting up of the heart and mind to God, asking nothing but to enjoy God's presence."
Praise, defined as the act of praising God "not to obtain anything, but because God's Being draws praise from us."
Thanksgiving, "offered to God for all of the blessings of this life, for our redemption, and for whatever draws us closer to God."
Penitence, defined as confessing of sins and making "restitution where possible, with the intention to amend our lives."
Oblation, "an offering of ourselves, our lives and labors, in union with Christ, for the purposes of God"
And Intercession and Petition, in which intercession is defined as bringing "before God the needs of others," and petition defined as presenting "our own needs, that God's will may be done."
I really like this viewpoint on prayer. I've considered life as a dialogue between us and God, and in this case, prayer is an extension of that.
It also, correctly, points out that prayer need not be for asking anything. Furthermore, in this definition of petition, it recognizes that God's will does not necessarily accord up with our own and we may not get what we want.
To me that's not the point. The point is the relationship with God.
For all that we often consider as religion [sans the simple gods of nature and house gods of simple folk], evidence suggests that the origins of religion came from the Pharaohs.
Incorrect there too. I would highly recommend finding new sources of information.
If indeed it's true that our systems of religion [all of which clearly man-made] came from the pharaohs, isn't it also of great interest that their doctors were the first known brain surgeons?
... What the... No, the Egyptians were brain surgeons only in the sense that they extracted them through the nose in the process of mummification. Why did they do this? Because they didn't know what the brain was for. They assumed, like many cultures, that the thinking organ was the heart, and thought the brain pumped blood.
Speaking of which, because I didn't miss the barb in that post, I just thought I should mention: God not being omniscient and all that, He totally does actually change his mind from time to time based on what He hears about us humans doing. So having judgments come down like "stop marrying seventy women at a time' and 'black people aren't evil anymore' is not only normal, but it's both to be expected and to be interpreted as a good thing. It means He's still paying attention.
On what possible level does this being you're describing, who requires people to tell him that treating black people as inferiors might not be a good thing or that marrying seventy women at a time might not be a beneficial arrangement, remotely resemble God?
Hard to tell God that He's immoral, since he's kind of the source of the definitions of morality.
Except God cannot make immoral proclaimations and still be a moral authority. You are arguing that both of these claims (that is, [1] God making immoral proclamations, and [2] God being a moral authority) can be true at the same time. Impossible. They oppose each other.
So which is it? Do we reject the claim that God is a moral authority, or do we reject the claim that God ever made those proclamations about hating black people and marrying seventy women?
And Intercession and Petition, in which intercession is defined as bringing "before God the needs of others," and petition defined as presenting "our own needs, that God's will may be done."
...
It also, correctly, points out that prayer need not be for asking anything. Furthermore, in this definition of petition, it recognizes that God's will does not necessarily accord up with our own and we may not get what we want.
I'm somewhat unclear on whether this means prayer that asks for something can impact whether you get it. Does god have a will on every situation, or are there some where he doesn't care one way or the other, and so will act according to the request?
The Catechism of the Episcopal Church defines prayer as "responding to God, by thought and deeds, with or without words."
That's a good resource if one is beckoning the Episcopal view of prayer (and thank you for the effort in that), although not even all-others of the Christian faith and/or religion will harmoniously resonate those definitions of prayer. And since Christianity (of any flavor) is not the most popular religion in the world, let alone the only religion, the Episcopal view at-best the paradigm of a statistical minority.
Buddhism, I think, is best understood as a spiritual philosophy. I understand this by not merely speculating or reading a Wikipedia entry, but rather have had at length discussions with many Buddhists. What 'we Westerner's' consider as religion is _not_ a part of Buddhism. There are plenty of Shinto and Shaman religions from Asia though, which are very much what we would consider as religion.
It isn't a religion in the Abrahamic sense [that most of us come to define as religion] as there is no god worship. No body whispers into your ear to tell you that it's a good idea to slay the woman and children on another plot of land, as it was promised to your people. Nobody makes sacrifices to earn the Buddhas' love or to try to avoid his divine wrath. There is no consideration into the creation of man and the universe, no 'god' nor 'architect' to put things into motion. To put time and effort into trying to create an understanding in this is is _not_ something Eastern Buddhists do, although a Western adaptation might well bastardize it and do so. The Buddhist philosophy don't have the oceans of blood on its hands, as the Abrahamic religions do. They haven't a long history of murder, power, greed, looting, enslavement and the vast atrocities that one reason or another, men of religion and faith had imposed on to many innocent people.
If indeed it's true that our systems of religion [all of which clearly man-made] came from the pharaohs, isn't it also of great interest that their doctors were the first known brain surgeons?
... What the... No, the Egyptians were brain surgeons only in the sense that they extracted them through the nose in the process of mummification. Why did they do this? Because they didn't know what the brain was for. They assumed, like many cultures, that the thinking organ was the heart, and thought the brain pumped blood.
Why then would have there been a considerable number of mummified skulls with pieces of bone added or removed, which had then fused after the operation? Surely the bones of a person that's alive can fuse back together, while the dead cannot. If the brain was only touched at death to remove it, then how to explain the physical evidence to the contrary? How then to explain that ancient Egyptian texts even _SPOKE_ directly of this as ways to mitigate madness? Not all ancient cultures were entirely and absolutely less intelligent and unaware of us. History is brimming of examples of past peoples and cultures who would make a mockery and shame of average folks in today's time and age.
Speaking of which, because I didn't miss the barb in that post, I just thought I should mention: God not being omniscient and all that, He totally does actually change his mind from time to time based on what He hears about us humans doing. So having judgments come down like "stop marrying seventy women at a time' and 'black people aren't evil anymore' is not only normal, but it's both to be expected and to be interpreted as a good thing. It means He's still paying attention.
.. anymore? So by your rational, black people WERE evil? The phenotypic result of a relatively different [and only different cause you're not of them] set of activated genes to express more melanin somehow makes one.. evil? wow!
How about, now that people have largely left their caves and bands of 'the people', we are less reluctant to speak to someone who looks different than us. More willing to try this different food that he eats. Interested to imitate the sounds that he's projecting, in an attempt to communicate with him. Why not a simple answer such that we are socially evolving to not be the scared, ignorant and bigoted mental midgets that our ancestors once were? There is great Darwinian value, reason and evidence in this. If one is to put it to the test of Ockham's Razor, then religious arguments are discarded as they need to constantly revise, make intersession and create a paradox of an all knowing and all wise god that needs to change his mind - and doesn't mind the input of humans from time to time, but of course, only if their input is in accord with his divine plan.
God not being omniscient and all that, He totally does actually change his mind from time to time based on what He hears about us humans doing. So having judgments come down like "stop marrying seventy women at a time' and 'black people aren't evil anymore' is not only normal, but it's both to be expected and to be interpreted as a good thing. It means He's still paying attention.
Before God (and I can't believe I'm about to say this in earnest) changed His mind about black people, were they evil? Was it His decree that caused them to go from bad to good? Was it more of a gradual process and God just made it official? Or was it really that enough people wanted God to turn black people good, so He obliged?
Or was it simply black people were defined as evil, and God just changed the definition?
That's a good resource if one is beckoning the Episcopal view of prayer (and thank you for the effort in that), although not even all-others of the Christian faith and/or religion will harmoniously resonate those definitions of prayer. And since Christianity (of any flavor) is not the most popular religion in the world, let alone the only religion, the Episcopal view at-best the paradigm of a statistical minority
How does being popular do anything to the definition of prayer that most Christian's follow?
Christians are hardly a statistical minority. In western culture most people identify themselves as Christian. This ranging from Catholics to Baptists.
Buddhism, I think, is best understood as a spiritual philosophy.
This would be wrong. It is very much a recognized world religion.
No body whispers into your ear to tell you that it's a good idea to slay the woman and children on another plot of land, as it was promised to your people.
If you think that this came from Christianity then you would be wrong. This type of warfare was standard for the time. empires were carved from the destruction of people and cities.
On this I take it you have no clue about what you are talking about. Ancient time warfare was barbaric and it was barbaric for a reason.
Nobody makes sacrifices to earn the Buddhas' love or to try to avoid his divine wrath. There is no consideration into the creation of man and the universe, no 'god' nor 'architect' to put things into motion.
This is a very myopic point of view on what a religion is.
The Buddhist philosophy don't have the oceans of blood on its hands, as the Abrahamic religions do. They haven't a long history of murder, power, greed, looting, enslavement and the vast atrocities that one reason or another, men of religion and faith had imposed on to many innocent people.
Evidently you haven't been reading the scriptures of Christ and his teachings. The old testament is a history of the Israelites. Nation building is bloody work. it doesn't come easy and it isn't done easy.
Every empire on earth from Babylon to Rome has done the same thing.
the things you accuse religion of are in fact independent of religion as a whole.
How then to explain that ancient Egyptian texts even _SPOKE_ directly of this as ways to mitigate madness? Not all ancient cultures were entirely and absolutely less intelligent and unaware of us.
Yep but in a very limited sort of way and it was not something that was done on an every day basis. in fact it was limited to kings, priests and usually nobility. which is probably why we find the skulls are they are still preserved in tombs.
anymore? So by your rational, black people WERE evil?
This was someone else's post. I don't know why you are crediting him with it.
Before God (and I can't believe I'm about to say this in earnest) changed His mind about black people, were they evil? Was it His decree that caused them to go from bad to good? Was it more of a gradual process and God just made it official? Or was it really that enough people wanted God to turn black people good, so He obliged?
This is a simple falsehood of which I have no idea where he is getting it from.
This comes from ignorance of the bible.
No where in the bible at least in the new testament does it condemn people for their skin. Living in Jewish society in general was different if you were not a jew, but that came more from the jewish church than anything that Christ was preaching on.
Buddhism, I think, is best understood as a spiritual philosophy. I understand this by not merely speculating or reading a Wikipedia entry, but rather have had at length discussions with many Buddhists. What 'we Westerner's' consider as religion is _not_ a part of Buddhism. There are plenty of Shinto and Shaman religions from Asia though, which are very much what we would consider as religion.
No, it's a religion. It has temples, worshipers, a metaphysical belief system, an afterlife, and systems of rituals and practices. It's a religion.
It isn't a religion in the Abrahamic sense [that most of us come to define as religion]
Of course it isn't. That's why it's not an Abrahamic faith. However, this does not change the fact that Buddhism is a religion.
as there is no god worship.
Depends on which group of Buddhists you speak of. Also, there are Buddhas and bodhisatvas.
The Buddhist philosophy don't have the oceans of blood on its hands, as the Abrahamic religions do.
Are you attempting to claim there have never been Buddhist religious wars? Because this is entirely false.
Why then would have there been a considerable number of mummified skulls with pieces of bone added or removed, which had then fused after the operation? Surely the bones of a person that's alive can fuse back together, while the dead cannot. If the brain was only touched at death to remove it, then how to explain the physical evidence to the contrary? How then to explain that ancient Egyptian texts even _SPOKE_ directly of this as ways to mitigate madness?
Probably because they figured out that broken skull = very bad. Probably because they observed that blunt force trauma to the brain causes mental changes and decided to explore that a bit.
None of this changes the fact that, as demonstrated, you are ascribing an understanding of the brain's working to a culture that not only had no conception of what the brain did, but actually believed an entirely different organ was the center for thought.
Not all ancient cultures were entirely and absolutely less intelligent and unaware of us.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
History is brimming of examples of past peoples and cultures who would make a mockery and shame of average folks in today's time and age.
If you're saying that the scientific knowledge of the Egyptians is anything compared to ours, you are out of your mind.
Speaking of which, because I didn't miss the barb in that post, I just thought I should mention: God not being omniscient and all that, He totally does actually change his mind from time to time based on what He hears about us humans doing. So having judgments come down like "stop marrying seventy women at a time' and 'black people aren't evil anymore' is not only normal, but it's both to be expected and to be interpreted as a good thing. It means He's still paying attention.
I did not say this. Please attribute the quote to the correct source.
What is the context of prayer, in your own experience and meaning? Indeed, if you are to submit to either two that I've provided, you would indeed hang yourself as neither promote a positive ground to assert prayer as comparable to treatment, let alone better than it.
This is not rhetorical, I'm looking for the answer.
=)
Sorry, what's your question? I can't follow what you're asking.
It's not even "a while back" - it's happening right now in Burma. Buddhist mobs torch Muslim homes and businesses.
after what the islamists have done to buddhists in recent events i can't say that i totally blame them.
i mean, taking it out on regular muslims is not the best way to go about it, but i understand some very serious anger there. the two groups do not like each other very much.
although with islam... islam doesn't really get along with anyone else, including other sects of islam. i know essentially all religions have this problem, but it's especially severe with islam.
Even if you don't pray to a particular entity, focusing your faith, fears, worries, loves and hopes into a thought form and releasing it into the universe is very beneficial. Carrying negative emotions inside is harmful and releasing them is a great relief. Sending positive thoughts outwards to those who need them is always great, even if not channeled through a particular belief. Lastly, declaring the things that you need and manifesting them into reality through the power of the voice is an important step to attaining them.
I'm somewhat unclear on whether this means prayer that asks for something can impact whether you get it. Does god have a will on every situation, or are there some where he doesn't care one way or the other, and so will act according to the request?
It might have seemed like I either didn't read or ignored this question, Tiax, but I've actually been turning it over in my mind trying to figure out how best to answer it.
I think the question misses the point. If you'll notice:
The Catechism of the Episcopal Church defines prayer as "responding to God, by thought and deeds, with or without words."
It describes seven different types of prayer:
Adoration, defined as "the lifting up of the heart and mind to God, asking nothing but to enjoy God's presence."
Praise, defined as the act of praising God "not to obtain anything, but because God's Being draws praise from us."
Thanksgiving, "offered to God for all of the blessings of this life, for our redemption, and for whatever draws us closer to God."
Penitence, defined as confessing of sins and making "restitution where possible, with the intention to amend our lives."
Oblation, "an offering of ourselves, our lives and labors, in union with Christ, for the purposes of God"
And Intercession and Petition, in which intercession is defined as bringing "before God the needs of others," and petition defined as presenting "our own needs, that God's will may be done."
All of these prayers all lead to the same end. All of them are a turning toward God. Prayer is a response to God, whether worded or unworded, whether in deed or in thought.
Sometimes prayers involve asking God for something, either for one's self or for another. But that's not what prayer is about. Prayer is about our relationship to God.
At our core is our relationship to God. That is who we are, and what we do naturally extends from who we are; that is to say, prayer, which is responding to God, naturally extends from this relationship we are always in with God. Thus, when we are thankful we give thanks, when we are joyous we rejoice, and when we are in confusion, disarray, and distress, we turn to God and express our needs.
Your question is based on the assumption that if God responds to our prayers, then God must never have had any sort of opinion or decision on the subject in the first place. I disagree with that. I don't believe God ever holds such ambivalence, I do indeed believe he has a will on all situations, but that does not mean that God does not respond to prayers of request.
In other words, this statement:
I'm somewhat unclear on whether this means prayer that asks for something can impact whether you get it.
has it backwards.
We are in relationship with God, and God is in relationship with us. When we are in want or need, we turn to God, and express our yearning because God is the source of all things. Thus, prayer.
The heart of that prayer, as with any prayer, is the relationship one has with God. Whether or not the request prayed for is granted is not the issue. The prayer is not in the result, but rather in the turning toward God and the complete dependence of the person praying upon God; in other words, the person praying is expressing who he is. That is what it's about.
I hope this makes sense. It's late and my ability to compose my thoughts is not at its best right now I admit.
Religion has existed for thousands of years, it's not going to go away. While you could argue something like Bhuddism is better because it focuses prayer into direct meditation and training the human brain which helps with emotional control and so forth as some parts of the brain do grow and change.
But I do think the communal nature for churches is something that atheism will need to find a way to replace, but then there are people who do practice rituals but do not believe in them.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Psychological Treatment is both quantifiable and quantifiable, and prayer is neither. If psychological couldn't offer real-world results, why bother having it? If prayer offered testable and verifiable results then OP's question would have not been asked not only by him, but by a great number of people who also wonder why other people pray.
If the context of praying is 'to do nothing but talk to your self' then yes, treatment is not a substitution -- it's the only approach to a resolve; extended sessions of talking to and answering oneself cannot have beneficial psychological properties.
If the context of prayer is 'letting god talk care of it as god sees fit', then we regress back to the original question - why bother praying? If god has a divine plan and all goes according to it, then what a great conceit it is for us fallible beings to challenge his omniscience.
Here's something of interest, which I think is highly relevant to this discussion.
For all that we often consider as religion [sans the simple gods of nature and house gods of simple folk], evidence suggests that the origins of religion came from the Pharaohs. If indeed it's true that our systems of religion [all of which clearly man-made] came from the pharaohs, isn't it also of great interest that their doctors were the first known brain surgeons? Isn't it interesting that they understood that the brain is largely a chemical organ and by influencing which chemicals are produced and in which quantities that a person can become normalized or longer suffer debilitating migraines? Isn't it interesting that to cure some people, they would remove pieces of the skull to reduce internal pressure or to induce pressure against a gland to produce more of a particular chemical?
The very people who brought religion in to this world didn't use it to 'fix' psychological problems - though do many religious folks of both today and yesterday, but rather they relied on science [hypothesis, testing and verification] to understand the brain to 'fix' it to work better?
Well, it doesn't exactly take an omniscient being to figure out that you shouldn't treat black people like cursed pariahs. Seems like maybe a god, omniscient or not, could have handled figuring that one out before the 1970s without a bunch of people telling him how confusing it was in Brazil.
Humans are social creatures, so it makes good sense for us to keep interacting with one another; this hasn't a thing to do religion or non religion. Although it's interesting to notice the clear-cut winners in the life expectancy category - Switzerland and Japan. Neither culture has a precedence on religion, and the more prominent religions there aren't Abrahamic. On the other hand, the bottom end of the life expectancy nations are a mess of both poverty and Islam. Largely impoverished nations that aren't nationally associated with a particular Abrahamic religion do tend to have a longer and healthier life expectancy. Though I suspect that this has far less to do with silver-aged sewing circles and much more with the oppressive and brutal religions that are used to enslave, murder and impoverish their own people; all in the name of god.
P.S., Buddhism technically isn't a religion. =)
The idea of God being the source of moral truth seems to be to be inextricably bound up with his omniscience, or at least omniscience as concerns moral matters. If the source of moral truth can be wrong about morality, then he couldn't actually have been the source of moral truth in the first place -- there would have to be an anterior system of moral truth in which God's wrong moral claim could be properly recognized as such.
And since you've all but admitted that God has been wrong about some moral issues (the treatment of black people in the LDS church, for instance), it seems that you yourself can't believe that he is the ultimate source of moral truth without risking inconsistency.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Then again, if someone you care about asks you to help them pray because of some important thing like a sick/dying friend, I don't see why you wouldn't humor them by keeping it in your thoughts.
You are wrong. It is very much so a religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
If god is neither omniscient nor omnipresent, then that being fails to be god, as both qualities are absolutely required for a god.
Having a god that isn't omnipresent is quite convenient for a paradigm of power and control actually, because then people are empowered to 'act on his behalf'. And as history has taught us - Christians and Muslims alike - acts on the behalf of god are genocide, rape, plunder, pillaging and torture. Hindu's through-out history, on the other hand, have exerted great pain and suffering only against other groups of people attempting to invade their land. Hard to hold such a thing against a person defending their home and family, while in contrast, it was most often the Catholics doing to invading, looting, raping, genociding, slaving, etc. Then, of course, it's declared that the greatest-high-Catholic -the Pope - is both infallible and anything / everything that he says is the binding word of god; I suppose that Jesus really is his homeboy.
One needs read only the first book of the bible to understand this, though further reading will greatly enforce this malevolence. With all of this anti-Islam rhetoric coming from both Catholics and Christians now a days, so many seem ignorant of the crusades -- acts which make modern day Muslim extremists seem like school children wading in the pool.
Exactly. You know who would have trouble figuring out that we shouldn't treat black people like cursed pariahs? Old racist white dudes in Utah. How very convenient that they're the only ones who god's willing to talk to.
Now back to the thread.
What is the context of prayer, in your own experience and meaning? Indeed, if you are to submit to either two that I've provided, you would indeed hang yourself as neither promote a positive ground to assert prayer as comparable to treatment, let alone better than it.
This is not rhetorical, I'm looking for the answer.
=)
Are you serious?
Aside from his double-use of the word quantifiable ( where I'm sure he meant "quantitative", or maybe even "qualifiers") I see nothing so wrong with his post that I could not tell exactly what he is getting at.
With the way you responded to my posts, I am forced to believe that the error in understanding, is on you Craig.
Really, his post is easily understood by anyone with more than a 7th grade grasp on English and Philosophy.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
God could only be the source of morality if there were absolutely such a thing as god, and that god had without disprove given us the rules to live and love one another by.
The fact that both cultures and religions of past & present don't agree on a single set of rules does well to clout the notion that 'god created morality' with great skepticism. How could god give one set of rules to one people and a seemingly contradictory list to another?
If god were a malevolent and pernicious bully that gained great enjoyment by watching the people of his world constantly suffer then yes, the notion of god derived morality would make sense and match well to what happens in reality.
If god were a loving, warm and generous god, then wouldn't it have made more sense for him to lay down such morality as __all people are created equal and are of equal merit, worth and value__? Would not each life be just as unique, precious and splendid as the next? If the Abrhamic god is to be considered, then he has sure made it clear that some men are to be rulers, some are meant to be slaughtered, some are meant to be slaves and even children of an opposing tribe are fair game to suffer the greatest of cruelties too. Indeed, he has prescribed ways for both slaves and slave owners to behave.
The names and lineages of men are of great accord and shall be inscribed for all generations to know, and generations will be known by their forefathers. Women, on the other hand, are at-best worth as much as a dog, but in a great number of cases they are worth much less. A man can take many women onto him self and he is still just and good in god's eyes, but if a women is to even take a second man on to her, then she is a whore and is to be punished by death. Sacrificing your own children to god is also looked upon as having great faith and devotion. This 'morality' is clear from Genesis all the way to revelations and even in the books that the Ecclesiastes choose to omit from their holy scriptures.
Indeed, anyone that might be moral in our own judgment would NEVER consider murdering their own children, nor the children of someone else. Only religion or insanity could ever foster such evil. Anyone truly moral would never see a woman as being less than a dog or less than man. They would know [believe isn't the right word] that woman is in most regards mans equal, and all other regards his superior in that she has the ability to conceive and create life, not to mention the ability to shoulder far greater burdens than an average man can. All Abrahamic religions gone through great effort to dehumanize and devalue women, it's sickening to read the many stories of the Bible in how everything is always about the human with the *****. This disregard for woman improves a little with the new testament, but it clear that she is still a far cry from being anything remotely equal.
So if our sense in the value of women is that they are indeed great, then clearly what-ever-it-is that helps to define our morals doesn't derive from the scriptures of an ancient desert-dwelling farm culture of the Middle East. If the idea of murdering children bothers us down to the very essence and core of our being, then again, or sense of morality does not come from the religion. If we can look at another man who's physical form expresses different phenotypic traits than ours and not think of him as odd, different, less than us.. then indeed, we don't derive morality from religion.
Religion provides all the answers for out-group hostility, and few for seeing each other exactly as we are – A conscience being with feelings, ambitions, hopes, dreams, loves and desires, all wrapped in different packaging.
But then again, if we made the whole god thing up in the first place, we'd need to adjust and tweak the 'morality' past as the zeitgeist moves on.
Well, ya know, even old racist white dudes from Utah need a hobby in between managing 12 wives.
... Incorrect.
Incorrect there too. I would highly recommend finding new sources of information.
... What the... No, the Egyptians were brain surgeons only in the sense that they extracted them through the nose in the process of mummification. Why did they do this? Because they didn't know what the brain was for. They assumed, like many cultures, that the thinking organ was the heart, and thought the brain pumped blood.
On what possible level does this being you're describing, who requires people to tell him that treating black people as inferiors might not be a good thing or that marrying seventy women at a time might not be a beneficial arrangement, remotely resemble God?
Except God cannot make immoral proclaimations and still be a moral authority. You are arguing that both of these claims (that is, [1] God making immoral proclamations, and [2] God being a moral authority) can be true at the same time. Impossible. They oppose each other.
So which is it? Do we reject the claim that God is a moral authority, or do we reject the claim that God ever made those proclamations about hating black people and marrying seventy women?
I'm somewhat unclear on whether this means prayer that asks for something can impact whether you get it. Does god have a will on every situation, or are there some where he doesn't care one way or the other, and so will act according to the request?
That's a good resource if one is beckoning the Episcopal view of prayer (and thank you for the effort in that), although not even all-others of the Christian faith and/or religion will harmoniously resonate those definitions of prayer. And since Christianity (of any flavor) is not the most popular religion in the world, let alone the only religion, the Episcopal view at-best the paradigm of a statistical minority.
Buddhism, I think, is best understood as a spiritual philosophy. I understand this by not merely speculating or reading a Wikipedia entry, but rather have had at length discussions with many Buddhists. What 'we Westerner's' consider as religion is _not_ a part of Buddhism. There are plenty of Shinto and Shaman religions from Asia though, which are very much what we would consider as religion.
It isn't a religion in the Abrahamic sense [that most of us come to define as religion] as there is no god worship. No body whispers into your ear to tell you that it's a good idea to slay the woman and children on another plot of land, as it was promised to your people. Nobody makes sacrifices to earn the Buddhas' love or to try to avoid his divine wrath. There is no consideration into the creation of man and the universe, no 'god' nor 'architect' to put things into motion. To put time and effort into trying to create an understanding in this is is _not_ something Eastern Buddhists do, although a Western adaptation might well bastardize it and do so. The Buddhist philosophy don't have the oceans of blood on its hands, as the Abrahamic religions do. They haven't a long history of murder, power, greed, looting, enslavement and the vast atrocities that one reason or another, men of religion and faith had imposed on to many innocent people.
Why then would have there been a considerable number of mummified skulls with pieces of bone added or removed, which had then fused after the operation? Surely the bones of a person that's alive can fuse back together, while the dead cannot. If the brain was only touched at death to remove it, then how to explain the physical evidence to the contrary? How then to explain that ancient Egyptian texts even _SPOKE_ directly of this as ways to mitigate madness? Not all ancient cultures were entirely and absolutely less intelligent and unaware of us. History is brimming of examples of past peoples and cultures who would make a mockery and shame of average folks in today's time and age.
.. anymore? So by your rational, black people WERE evil? The phenotypic result of a relatively different [and only different cause you're not of them] set of activated genes to express more melanin somehow makes one.. evil? wow!
How about, now that people have largely left their caves and bands of 'the people', we are less reluctant to speak to someone who looks different than us. More willing to try this different food that he eats. Interested to imitate the sounds that he's projecting, in an attempt to communicate with him. Why not a simple answer such that we are socially evolving to not be the scared, ignorant and bigoted mental midgets that our ancestors once were? There is great Darwinian value, reason and evidence in this. If one is to put it to the test of Ockham's Razor, then religious arguments are discarded as they need to constantly revise, make intersession and create a paradox of an all knowing and all wise god that needs to change his mind - and doesn't mind the input of humans from time to time, but of course, only if their input is in accord with his divine plan.
Before God (and I can't believe I'm about to say this in earnest) changed His mind about black people, were they evil? Was it His decree that caused them to go from bad to good? Was it more of a gradual process and God just made it official? Or was it really that enough people wanted God to turn black people good, so He obliged?
Or was it simply black people were defined as evil, and God just changed the definition?
How does being popular do anything to the definition of prayer that most Christian's follow?
Christians are hardly a statistical minority. In western culture most people identify themselves as Christian. This ranging from Catholics to Baptists.
This would be wrong. It is very much a recognized world religion.
If you think that this came from Christianity then you would be wrong. This type of warfare was standard for the time. empires were carved from the destruction of people and cities.
On this I take it you have no clue about what you are talking about. Ancient time warfare was barbaric and it was barbaric for a reason.
This is a very myopic point of view on what a religion is.
Evidently you haven't been reading the scriptures of Christ and his teachings. The old testament is a history of the Israelites. Nation building is bloody work. it doesn't come easy and it isn't done easy.
Every empire on earth from Babylon to Rome has done the same thing.
the things you accuse religion of are in fact independent of religion as a whole.
Yep but in a very limited sort of way and it was not something that was done on an every day basis. in fact it was limited to kings, priests and usually nobility. which is probably why we find the skulls are they are still preserved in tombs.
This was someone else's post. I don't know why you are crediting him with it.
This is a simple falsehood of which I have no idea where he is getting it from.
This comes from ignorance of the bible.
No where in the bible at least in the new testament does it condemn people for their skin. Living in Jewish society in general was different if you were not a jew, but that came more from the jewish church than anything that Christ was preaching on.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
No, it's a religion. It has temples, worshipers, a metaphysical belief system, an afterlife, and systems of rituals and practices. It's a religion.
Of course it isn't. That's why it's not an Abrahamic faith. However, this does not change the fact that Buddhism is a religion.
Depends on which group of Buddhists you speak of. Also, there are Buddhas and bodhisatvas.
Are you attempting to claim there have never been Buddhist religious wars? Because this is entirely false.
Probably because they figured out that broken skull = very bad. Probably because they observed that blunt force trauma to the brain causes mental changes and decided to explore that a bit.
None of this changes the fact that, as demonstrated, you are ascribing an understanding of the brain's working to a culture that not only had no conception of what the brain did, but actually believed an entirely different organ was the center for thought.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
If you're saying that the scientific knowledge of the Egyptians is anything compared to ours, you are out of your mind.
I did not say this. Please attribute the quote to the correct source.
Actually awhile back the Buddhist monks used to ride down from the mountains and slaughter the villagers once in awhile for not being Buddhist enough.
Very crudely stated, but the gist is actually true.
Sorry, what's your question? I can't follow what you're asking.
after what the islamists have done to buddhists in recent events i can't say that i totally blame them.
i mean, taking it out on regular muslims is not the best way to go about it, but i understand some very serious anger there. the two groups do not like each other very much.
although with islam... islam doesn't really get along with anyone else, including other sects of islam. i know essentially all religions have this problem, but it's especially severe with islam.
[Clan Flamingo]
It might have seemed like I either didn't read or ignored this question, Tiax, but I've actually been turning it over in my mind trying to figure out how best to answer it.
I think the question misses the point. If you'll notice:
All of these prayers all lead to the same end. All of them are a turning toward God. Prayer is a response to God, whether worded or unworded, whether in deed or in thought.
Sometimes prayers involve asking God for something, either for one's self or for another. But that's not what prayer is about. Prayer is about our relationship to God.
At our core is our relationship to God. That is who we are, and what we do naturally extends from who we are; that is to say, prayer, which is responding to God, naturally extends from this relationship we are always in with God. Thus, when we are thankful we give thanks, when we are joyous we rejoice, and when we are in confusion, disarray, and distress, we turn to God and express our needs.
Your question is based on the assumption that if God responds to our prayers, then God must never have had any sort of opinion or decision on the subject in the first place. I disagree with that. I don't believe God ever holds such ambivalence, I do indeed believe he has a will on all situations, but that does not mean that God does not respond to prayers of request.
In other words, this statement:
has it backwards.
We are in relationship with God, and God is in relationship with us. When we are in want or need, we turn to God, and express our yearning because God is the source of all things. Thus, prayer.
The heart of that prayer, as with any prayer, is the relationship one has with God. Whether or not the request prayed for is granted is not the issue. The prayer is not in the result, but rather in the turning toward God and the complete dependence of the person praying upon God; in other words, the person praying is expressing who he is. That is what it's about.
I hope this makes sense. It's late and my ability to compose my thoughts is not at its best right now I admit.