Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Prayer and Worship are just not worth examination.

In philosophy of religion they sure as hell are. This could mean the entire world has no idea what they're talking about when to use those words. I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.

If by contribute, you mean, take you seriously, I think you are going to be ignoring a hell of a lot of people.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Prayer and Worship are just not worth examination.

In philosophy of religion they sure as hell are. This could mean the entire world has no idea what they're talking about when to use those words. I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.

But I have contributed.
"They sure as Hell Are" is not an argument.

Prayer and Worship have done nothing but serious harm to humanity since some bright spark made people do it for the first time.
The best that can be said about these practices is that they are a complete waste of time. Talking to an empty room, using an empty head is not to be recommended.

I glad for the opportunity to positively contribute to this (ahem!) discussion.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Prayer and Worship are just not worth examination.

In philosophy of religion they sure as hell are. This could mean the entire world has no idea what they're talking about when to use those words. I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.

But I have contributed.
"They sure as Hell Are" is not an argument.

Prayer and Worship have done nothing but serious harm to humanity since some bright spark made people do it for the first time.
The best that can be said about these practices is that they are a complete waste of time. Talking to an empty room, using an empty head is not to be recommended.

I glad for the opportunity to positively contribute to this (ahem!) discussion.

I expected a lot more from you. First of all, I wasn't making an argument. I was stating a fact. Second of all, you are doing the same thing the other guy did. You are using standard definitions despite the fact that I've demonstrated there is a problem with the stardard definitions.

They whole point is the definitions need changing.

Nobody is disagreeing that the current definitions caused and continue to cause problems. In fact, I believe if we had the original definitions that those problems would not have existed.

Jaded Sage wrote:you are doing the same thing the other guy did.

If you find there is a pattern emerging perhaps you should be asking why that might be.
Regards. The Other Guy.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:
In philosophy of religion they sure as hell are. This could mean the entire world has no idea what they're talking about when to use those words. I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.

But I have contributed.
"They sure as Hell Are" is not an argument.

Prayer and Worship have done nothing but serious harm to humanity since some bright spark made people do it for the first time.
The best that can be said about these practices is that they are a complete waste of time. Talking to an empty room, using an empty head is not to be recommended.

I glad for the opportunity to positively contribute to this (ahem!) discussion.

I expected a lot more from you. First of all, I wasn't making an argument. I was stating a fact. Second of all, you are doing the same thing the other guy did. You are using standard definitions despite the fact that I've demonstrated there is a problem with the stardard definitions.

They whole point is the definitions need changing.

Nobody is disagreeing that the current definitions caused and continue to cause problems. In fact, I believe if we had the original definitions that those problems would not have existed.

The problem is not with the definitions in any sense. It does not matter how you divide it, categorise it, or sunder it. The practices of worship and prayer in their myriad forms are still a waste of time, and produce nothing of value.

BTW. No one is worshipping alcohol, they are drinking it.

You are confusing a metaphor for a definition. When you say of a crying child that they are "milking it", does not require a different definition of 'milking', and when you say someone worships alcohol no one means it literally, so no change in definition is required.

Hobbes: One definition causes violence the other does not. I can see your prejudice will prevent me from making headway with you. Good day.

Jaded Sage wrote:Hobbes: One definition causes violence the other does not. I can see your prejudice will prevent me from making headway with you. Good day.

I feel like I'm being sidelined here. It was I who helped you get this thread off the ground so it should be me that you fail to make any headway with.

Jaded Sage wrote: I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.

So you've been ignoring me when I wasn't even here?

Like the word "god", it seems the concepts of prayer and worship cannot avoid reflecting so many meanings/purposes that evolving and varied humans will assign. It may seem like the "intended meanings" have been tainted... but for some people, the originating beliefs are tainted. So the concepts either get discarded or reapplied to things that fit with individual beliefs. Personally, I do not like the concept of "worship" at all, as it seems to require an "other" of higher stature to bow down to and be (perhaps) obsessed by... which doesn't make sense in my own spiritual view. The word "prayer" however, (for me) could mean meditative communication with all that is. So I can relate to that.

Belief in gods -- and people's relationship with them -- has been so varied. There's no reason for me to conclude that any particular current perspective will be unchanging or un-evolving. The ideas of prayer and worship may be absolutely meaningless on all levels in 200 years. To me, everything seems geared within the quality of presence in the moment (however you go about it). Experience it now... treasure it now... find meaning now... enjoy it now. Each, for ourselves. What we can share feels glorious... but I don't think we need to share to be vibrating complete.

Lacewing wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: I'm ignoring anyone who doesn't want to comtribute.

So you've been ignoring me when I wasn't even here?

Like the word "god", it seems the concepts of prayer and worship cannot avoid reflecting so many meanings/purposes that evolving and varied humans will assign. It may seem like the "intended meanings" have been tainted... but for some people, the originating beliefs are tainted. So the concepts either get discarded or reapplied to things that fit with individual beliefs. Personally, I do not like the concept of "worship" at all, as it seems to require an "other" of higher stature to bow down to and be (perhaps) obsessed by... which doesn't make sense in my own spiritual view. The word "prayer" however, (for me) could mean meditative communication with all that is. So I can relate to that.

Belief in gods -- and people's relationship with them -- has been so varied. There's no reason for me to conclude that any particular current perspective will be unchanging or un-evolving. The ideas of prayer and worship may be absolutely meaningless on all levels in 200 years. To me, everything seems geared within the quality of presence in the moment (however you go about it). Experience it now... treasure it now... find meaning now... enjoy it now. Each, for ourselves. What we can share feels glorious... but I don't think we need to share to be vibrating complete.

I fail to see how an original concept can be tainted. Paul was discussing what this new faith was. He was essentially inventing it. Seeing as how he founded most of it, it is impossible he tainted it.

But I do think maybe there is something to the idea of obsession.

You also seem to be making the same mistake as the other two using the standard definition when I have demonstrated that there is a problem with the standard definition. If you if you can't get past that I'll have to ignore you too as I don't see what else you contribute.

If this new view somehow offensive or something?

Jaded Sage wrote: I fail to see how an original concept can be tainted. Paul was discussing what this new faith was. He was essentially inventing it. Seeing as how he founded most of it, it is impossible he tainted it.

So you think there is an original point of purity and truth... that can have no tainting from anywhere... not even from the one who creates a concept?

Jaded Sage wrote:You also seem to be making the same mistake as the other two using the standard definition...

I had a feeling that I was going to fall short of your intended discussion... but I gave it a brave shot!

Jaded Sage wrote:if you can't get past that I'll have to ignore you too as I don't see what else you contribute.

Darn it.

I believe original intentions can be corrupted by others.

Jaded Sage wrote:I believe original intentions can be corrupted by others.

But not by the self?

Lacewing wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I believe original intentions can be corrupted by others.

But not by the self?

not if it is the original idea. Later it can be, but not originally.

We are way off topic. I think I'm gonna call it here.