Do you pray?

Do you pray?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
G

goinghome

Guest
Thanks, Quiffa. Those links are interesting. Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn't know Quakers still existed. They always seem to be spoken of in the past here in the States. Good to see that social justice work is still high on the Quaker agenda. I've been studying the 1847-50 Irish Famine, and the Quakers relief efforts to feed the starving were truly heroic.

I like the sound of the Quakers too.

Did you know that the Choctaw Native Americans also sent a very generous (for its time) donation to help out the Irish during the famine? - http://celticclothing.com/mm5/irish-american/cc07-03-irish-famine.php .

Given certain similarities between alcohol and prayer - the relaxation through spirit, elevated self-confidence and amicability towards one's fellowman oftentimes, potentially impaired judgement, a preference for instant consolation over reality etc - this very ancient Sumerian prayer-hymn to their goddess of alcohol, Ninkasi, seems appropriate, which contains within it a recipe for making beer! -

Borne of the flowing water (...)
Tenderly cared for by the Ninhursag,
Borne of the flowing water (...)
Tenderly cared for by the Ninhursag,

Having founded your town by the sacred lake,
She finished its great walls for you,
Ninkasi, having founded your town by the sacred lake,
She finished its great walls for you

Your father is Enki, Lord Nidimmud,
Your mother is Ninti, the queen of the sacred lake,
Ninkasi, Your father is Enki, Lord Nidimmud,
Your mother is Ninti, the queen of the sacred lake.

You are the one who handles the dough,
[and] with a big shovel,
Mixing in a pit, the bappir with sweet aromatics,
Ninkasi, You are the one who handles
the dough, [and] with a big shovel,
Mixing in a pit, the bappir with [date]-honey.

You are the one who bakes the bappir
in the big oven,
Puts in order the piles of hulled grains,
Ninkasi, you are the one who bakes
the bappir in the big oven,
Puts in order the piles of hulled grains,

You are the one who waters the malt
set on the ground,
The noble dogs keep away even the potentates,
Ninkasi, you are the one who waters the malt
set on the ground,
The noble dogs keep away even the potentates.

You are the one who soaks the malt in a jar
The waves rise, the waves fall.
Ninkasi, you are the one who soaks
the malt in a jar
The waves rise, the waves fall.

You are the one who spreads the cooked
mash on large reed mats,
Coolness overcomes.
Ninkasi, you are the one who spreads
the cooked mash on large reed mats,
Coolness overcomes.

You are the one who holds with both hands
the great sweet wort,
Brewing [it] with honey and wine
(You the sweet wort to the vessel)
Ninkasi, (...)
(You the sweet wort to the vessel)

The filtering vat, which makes
a pleasant sound,
You place appropriately on [top of]
a large collector vat.
Ninkasi, the filtering vat,
which makes a pleasant sound,
You place appropriately on [top of]
a large collector vat.

When you pour out the filtered beer
of the collector vat,
It is [like] the onrush of
Tigris and Euphrates.
Ninkasi, you are the one who pours out the
filtered beer of the collector vat,
It is [like] the onrush of
Tigris and Euphrates.

From: http://www.piney.com/BabNinkasi.html
 

Flax

Active Member
I never understand why people try to reason faith or the lack of it. The whole idea of faith is to believe in something regardless of logic.

I don't pray but I say, why not go for it if it makes you feel good.

I disagree with that.
Faith is unnatural. It's the glorification of the death of some of the most important characteristics of being human: reason and critical thinking.

It's sad to see that, ironically, this type of violence against the brilliance of the human mind is often self-inflicted.
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
It's sad to see that, ironically, this type of violence against the brilliance of the human mind is often self-inflicted.

funny you say that cuz when I most depressed and filled with mental anguish :tears:
one of the other things I consider doing is hitting myself with a hammer

no, I am not joking :straightface:

the last time I did so was shortly before coming to this website on my own actually :eek: (years ago now like 6 or so :confused:)
who knows if not for David T and my praying to "godlike forces" :crazy:
well then, perhaps, I would still be all alone in the universe and subject to the occasional self inflicted hammer strike to the head :squiffy:
 

Our Lady

New Member
'I pray like a robber asking alms at the door of a farmhouse to which he is ready to set fire'.

But, again, no.
 

nogodsnomasters85

Not Stirred
I never understand why people try to reason faith or the lack of it. The whole idea of faith is to believe in something regardless of logic.I don't pray but I say, why not go for it if it makes you feel good.

That's true. It's also the most powerful argument against religious faith. By it's nature religion is unreasonable because it is not governed by reason. To paraphrase Sam Harris; besides killing eachother the only means of resolving our differences is through conversation, and religion is a conversation stopper.

In the nuclear age such antiquated dogmatisms pose a greater threat than ever, this is what I mean when I say that we may have to choose between them and civilization, it looks like that is what it's coming down to.

Also, we should not fall into the common trap of the general wisdom that says we can all get along, or that religious violence is only the product of fringe extremists who don't really exemplify these faiths. These misconceptions are easily dissipated by even a casual perusal of different religious texts. For one thing; these books are fundamentally incompatible. According to the Bible all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, what-have-you, that do not convert to Christianity will burn in hell forever. Other religions have similar tenets. Christianity and Shinto Buddhism are not compatible.
Second, many of these books not only condone but actually promote some of the most violent, atavistic behavior imagineable. Do not doubt for a second that the Inquisitors, Osama Bin Laden, and abortion clinic bombers have read their respective texts very well and can cite chapter and verse. They were perfectly capable of squaring their actions with those texts, in fact, their actions were inspired by those texts. All the so called religious moderates and cafeteria catholics are just giving more credence and legitimacy to a fundamentalist core that are nothing less than the enemies of civilization.
 

jamescagney

Stood at the urinal
I never understand why people try to reason faith or the lack of it. The whole idea of faith is to believe in something regardless of logic.

Yes and no. You're right that the Bible includes claims baked into it that belief in God cannot be argued via logic. But that's awfully convenient, isn't it? That's one of the ways deism has retained its majority membership. Just like they initially outlawed laypeople reading and studying the Bible. Trying to avoid scrutiny, to increase their numbers. A belief system that tries to avoid scrutiny, deserves scrutiny.

It sounds reasonable to say, "don't confront that one individual, respect their beliefs." But that one person becomes millions of people who form and fund powerful organizations. That one person becomes a world-wide majority that vote almost exclusively for their own kind and affect global policy and funding. And suddenly global policy also becomes based on faith and beyond scrutiny by science and logic.

"Back in the day," Christianity and other superstitions and religions were explanations for how and why the world is and came to be. God created the sun and earth, thunder is god or the gods bowling, desires are the devil's influence, etc. etc. Later on, science came up with far more compelling explanations, along with the far better "scientific method" of testing / demonstrating the truth of theories.

Christian leaders elected to view science as a direct threat for some reason (because their statements showed statements of Jesus and the Apostles to be factually inaccurate). Christianity actively combatted it by force, but they've been proven to be on the wrong side of the truth about the nature of life and the universe, with grievously evil results on innocent people.

As a result, significant portions of Christianity has so far set itself up as being diametrically opposite to and incompatible with science, even when it doesn't need to be. A little more logical thought on the part of the church is in order, both for the good of science and Christianity. Evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity or Creationism, both could potentially be true at the same time.

Significant parts of Christianity still fight evolution, paleontology, etc. on unscientific grounds. They turn to the Bible and people who communicate with an unseen God to answer questions about ethics and important decisions about life and public policy, funding for medical clinics, condoms and needles to prevent AIDS in third-world countries, etc. with disastrous effects. Condemning multiple continents to die of preventable diseases because your particular interpretation of Biblical parables suggests it *might* anger God is... not right. Apparently some groups feel that everything in life is a leap of faith outside of logical argument, not just religion. This is bad and hurts us.

So yes, maybe religion could benefit from receiving some more logical scrutiny, when it has been wrongly and negatively scrutinizing science in a similar manner. Maybe it's time to consider the benefit of applying scientific method to all questions of the nature of the universe, instead of conveniently excluding one of the most important questions from it. It might have helped the church realize when they're wrong more quickly.

I think it's time for people to be allowed to use logic to question whether Christianity and the other multiple deist beliefs were created by primitive men to explain why people died from eating shellfish and other scientific questions they were ill equipped to answer. Time to ask whether a better explanation (science) has come along. Time to stop excluding religious beliefs as being in a special category that's somehow too sensitive to discuss, for fear of offending someone's dangerous extra-logical superstition that shapes policy.

Yes, it's a long post. Got a problem with that? Bite me! ;)
 
Last edited:

5am

well, maybe I am
I disagree with that.
Faith is unnatural. It's the glorification of the death of some of the most important characteristics of being human: reason and critical thinking.

It's sad to see that, ironically, this type of violence against the brilliance of the human mind is often self-inflicted.

To act upon a feeling or to believe in something just because it feels right is very human. I think we all do that. I call it intuition, others may call it god. Is it really that different?

That's true. It's also the most powerful argument against religious faith. By it's nature religion is unreasonable because it is not governed by reason. To paraphrase Sam Harris; besides killing eachother the only means of resolving our differences is through conversation, and religion is a conversation stopper.

In the nuclear age such antiquated dogmatisms pose a greater threat than ever, this is what I mean when I say that we may have to choose between them and civilization, it looks like that is what it's coming down to.

Also, we should not fall into the common trap of the general wisdom that says we can all get along, or that religious violence is only the product of fringe extremists who don't really exemplify these faiths. These misconceptions are easily dissipated by even a casual perusal of different religious texts. For one thing; these books are fundamentally incompatible. According to the Bible all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, what-have-you, that do not convert to Christianity will burn in hell forever. Other religions have similar tenets. Christianity and Shinto Buddhism are not compatible.
Second, many of these books not only condone but actually promote some of the most violent, atavistic behavior imagineable. Do not doubt for a second that the Inquisitors, Osama Bin Laden, and abortion clinic bombers have read their respective texts very well and can cite chapter and verse. They were perfectly capable of squaring their actions with those texts, in fact, their actions were inspired by those texts. All the so called religious moderates and cafeteria catholics are just giving more credence and legitimacy to a fundamentalist core that are nothing less than the enemies of civilization.

It's the organized religion that aspires to control most aspects of people's lives, and I agree with your critic against it. But faith doesn't necessarily determines people's actions or even their norms and values.

I don't care whether people believe in god or not. I care about actions and words, especially when it's effecting my life. But what people believe in is really none of my business. So you see, I get really upset when in the name of religion people support or display violence. But if someone tells me "I believe in god", I know god is real in this person's life. I am 100% sure he/she can't prove it, just like I can't prove that there is no god. And that's ok with me.
 

5am

well, maybe I am
Yes and no. You're right that the Bible includes claims baked into it that belief in God cannot be argued via logic. But that's awfully convenient, isn't it? That's one of the ways deism has retained its majority membership. Just like they initially outlawed laypeople reading and studying the Bible. Trying to avoid scrutiny, to increase their numbers. A belief system that tries to avoid scrutiny, deserves scrutiny.

It sounds reasonable to say, "don't confront that one individual, respect their beliefs." But that one person becomes millions of people who form and fund powerful organizations. That one person becomes a world-wide majority that vote almost exclusively for their own kind and affect global policy and funding. And suddenly global policy also becomes based on faith and beyond scrutiny by science and logic.

"Back in the day," Christianity and other superstitions and religions were explanations for how and why the world is and came to be. God created the sun and earth, thunder is god or the gods bowling, desires are the devil's influence, etc. etc. Later on, science came up with far more compelling explanations, along with the far better "scientific method" of testing / demonstrating the truth of theories.

Christian leaders elected to view science as a direct threat for some reason (because their statements showed statements of Jesus and the Apostles to be factually inaccurate). Christianity actively combatted it by force, but they've been proven to be on the wrong side of the truth about the nature of life and the universe, with grievously evil results on innocent people.

As a result, significant portions of Christianity has so far set itself up as being diametrically opposite to and incompatible with science, even when it doesn't need to be. A little more logical thought on the part of the church is in order, both for the good of science and Christianity. Evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity or Creationism, both could potentially be true at the same time.

Significant parts of Christianity still fight evolution, paleontology, etc. on unscientific grounds. They turn to the Bible and people who communicate with an unseen God to answer questions about ethics and important decisions about life and public policy, funding for medical clinics, condoms and needles to prevent AIDS in third-world countries, etc. with disastrous effects. Condemning multiple continents to die of preventable diseases because your particular interpretation of Biblical parables suggests it *might* anger God is... not right. Apparently some groups feel that everything in life is a leap of faith outside of logical argument, not just religion. This is bad and hurts us.

So yes, maybe religion could benefit from receiving some more logical scrutiny, when it has been wrongly and negatively scrutinizing science in a similar manner. Maybe it's time to consider the benefit of applying scientific method to all questions of the nature of the universe, instead of conveniently excluding one of the most important questions from it. It might have helped the church realize when they're wrong more quickly.

I think it's time for people to be allowed to use logic to question whether Christianity and the other multiple deist beliefs were created by primitive men to explain why people died from eating shellfish and other scientific questions they were ill equipped to answer. Time to ask whether a better explanation (science) has come along. Time to stop excluding religious beliefs as being in a special category that's somehow too sensitive to discuss, for fear of offending someone's dangerous extra-logical superstition that shapes policy.

Yes, it's a long post. Got a problem with that? Bite me! ;)

You know, I work with scientists and at least half of them believe in god and practice a religion to some extant. It's not really a us and them thing :)
 

jamescagney

Stood at the urinal
You know, I work with scientists and at least half of them believe in god and practice a religion to some extant. It's not really a us and them thing :)

That's what I was saying! :) science and scientists aren't attacking religion, but religion doesn't always play nice with science and logic. It could. Religion could benefit from using science and logic more than it has.
 

MindlessRuffian

Señor Member
I wondered if anyone would catch that. :p
Were you raised in the one true faith* MR? :D


*=I know I should not need to say this, but I am making a joke people
I am not a practicing Catholic anymore, so please dont freak out
thx...

I wasn't. My father's family is Catholic, but I was raised to be without religion to allow me to make my decision on my own whether or not I want to follow one. I am deeply considering converting, when I get a license and don't have to walk in the snow to talk to Father Dan about it/attend Mass
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
I wasn't. My father's family is Catholic, but I was raised to be without religion to allow me to make my decision on my own whether or not I want to follow one. I am deeply considering converting, when I get a license and don't have to walk in the snow to talk to Father Dan about it/attend Mass

interesting, I am all for people exploring faith rather than not at all :o
 
Top Bottom