The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on December 24, 2013, 02:03:06 PM
-
An interesting observation I've made is praying according to the rites of all major Faiths. In the Church of England, the principle Daily Prayers are Morning & Evening Prayer. Many also use Noon & Night Prayer. Among Muslims, the custom is to pray 5 times a day. We Jews pray 3 times a day. On Sabbath a 4th is added, & on Yom Kippur a 5th is added. In the C of E, on Sunday, Divine Service is added, & also is during the week in some churches. The interesting thing about all this is that all 3 traditions feel the need to mark time throughout the day. Christian services are, of course, noticeably derived from the much older synagogue services, particularly as re: the singing of the Psalter. Muslim prayers are independent of the synagogue in structure. I should be curious to know if the non-Abrahamic faiths mark time in this way. Any thoughts on this?
-
I think maybe you should all get together and give god a day off once in a while.
I also think too many people use prayers as a request not a thankyou.
Lastly I think the reason being is that the inventors of these religions were clever enough to know that a big bad ass god is only a good control of people if its in the front of people's minds and this is a good way to keep it there.
-
Re: your 2nd point, the prayer books tend to agree. I think it is assumed that people's informal prayer is going to mostly be 'O shit, help!'. So, the formal prayers are mostly prayers of thanksgiving & praise.
-
I don't think it has any significant relevance, to be honest. They pray at different times of the day because different times of the day, don't you think?
-
Lemon, I think there's more to it. Go back to an age before wristwatches & inexpensive timepieces. For many people, the only way to keep time was through direct observation of a sundial, or some similar method. & in a world of MUCH greater religiosity, people would want to mark the day w/ prayer. This was also a less secure, more fearful age. People tend to pray more regularly when when they're scared shitless on a regular basis, don't you think?
-
How exactly does what you just said go against what I said? Sure, you can pray more when scared out of your wits all the damn time, but that doesn't mean you'll necessarily pray at any specific time. I think they pray at those times simply because. Good points of progress throughout the day.
-
Ok. I could accept that as an axiom for the Abrahamic traditions, but what about the East? I don't even know if they have the practice.
-
I know basically nothing of any of this, as I've never been associated with any faith that had a rigid schedule of prayer. I was raised baptist (which is honestly just racism and homophobia with a bible), so I've always been a few drinks shy of atheism at the core.
I am interested, though, as I find these sorts of ritualistic faiths fascinating.
-
Not to derail this thread, but I find it really odd that all three faiths believe that God is so vein, he requires them to praise him at regular intervals throughout the day. After a while, I would think that all this praise just becomes mechanical and does not really mean anything. Sort of like when you tell the same person you love him/her several times per day for 20 years. At first, you might really mean it. Eventually, you do it because you feel obliged to do so, even if you do not feel as passionate about saying it anymore.
-
Yas, God is vein.
Ok. I could accept that as an axiom for the Abrahamic traditions, but what about the East? I don't even know if they have the practice.
Eastern religions are usually more about the individual than the gods themselves. For example, in Hinduism devotion to the gods is just another way of achieving true happiness, and there are other paths to Nirvana that have little if anything to do with the gods. You don't have to jump through hoops to prove your devotion to your gods of choice, because they don't give a shit and you're mostly doing it for your own sake.
-
Yas, God is vein.
Ok. I could accept that as an axiom for the Abrahamic traditions, but what about the East? I don't even know if they have the practice.
Eastern religions are usually more about the individual than the gods themselves. For example, in Hinduism devotion to the gods is just another way of achieving true happiness, and there are other paths to Nirvana that have little if anything to do with the gods. You don't have to jump through hoops to prove your devotion to your gods of choice, because they don't give a shit and you're mostly doing it for your own sake.
Everyday I'm believing less and less that Yaakov is a historian. To get a BA in history you have to take world, ancient, European, and American history courses so he should have basic knowledge of most cultures/histories.
Like Tausami said Eastern religions are more about the individual than paying homage to a god. Buddhism, for example, is about achieving Nirvana through meditation and releasing yourself from all physical and earthly desires. Buddha himself is not even a god as we know them. If you consider meditation prayer than they tend to do that in the morning and at night and for as long as they wish.
Other Eastern religions allow for small shrines for a house/family protector. Since it's not monotheistic they pray to whichever god that's relevant to their situation but there's no strict rule that I'm aware of.
In ancient Chinese religions your ancestors would be your gods/protectors and that is who you would have prayed to with state "religions" being more social/political institutions like Confucianism.
-
I was aware of what you explained regarding Eastern religion. What I was NOT aware of was whether or not they had a practice of praying three or four times daily. Or meditating three or four times daily, for that matter. Now that I think about it, it is only logical that a religion that doesn't have emphasis on one deity would probably not have much interest in stable prayer as such. And meditation can be done any time or any where.
-
Well meditation for monks can last about 2 hours so I doubt they do that 4x a day unless they're trying to skip out on chores.
-
We Jews pray 3 times a day. On Sabbath a 4th is added, & on Yom Kippur a 5th is added.
Since you were a child you have been conditioned to take time out of your day to contemplate someone's vision of how you should live 3times a day. Prayer is reinforcement of political ideals.
If you were to start think how much better iPhones are than other phones 3 times a day from the age of 4, and gave thanks and praise to Apple, would you buy a Samsung? Prayer is brain washing for the masses. Hymns, prayers, readings. It's repetitive reinforcement of religious ideals. Massively effective. Incredibly powerful. Your religious leaders are literally in your head all day every day.
On a slightly unrelated note, do you really think a supreme deity needs you to thank it 3 times a day everyday? That's a pretty insecure God.
Leave God alone! >o<
Bloody god-botherers.
-
The Bible actually quotes God as calling Himself jealous, so yeah, there's an insecurity with the Fundamental idea of God.
-
The Bible actually quotes God as calling Himself jealous, so yeah, there's an insecurity with the Fundamental idea of God.
Which doesn't really follow the idea of a perfect God, does it? Isn't jealousy supposed to be a sin?
-
In the Bible a lot of acts listed as sins are done by God himself at some point. I believe in the Biblical God, but I think the people who wrote the Bible made up a lot of stuff about him.
-
In the Bible a lot of acts listed as sins are done by God himself at some point. I believe in the Biblical God, but I think the people who wrote the Bible made up a lot of stuff about him.
This seems contradictory. You say you believe in a god as depicted in the bible, but admit that everything written about said god was written by humans, and is therefore unreliable. Does this not also call the very existence of that god into question? This is the hurdle I was never able to get over with religion.
It's like if I wrote a guide for hunting a creature no one had ever actually seen (and may not even exist), and still scores of hunters buy the book and take to the wilderness in search of the beast.
Now that I read that again, that could probably actually happen. BRB, writing a book on hunting the rare midwestern slitherbeast.
-
I just believe he exists. I believe he's the only God, and that a personal element can still exist, but as I said before, divine intervention is probably rare in life.
It's like Beowulf or Gilgamesh. They probably did exist as great kings, but people made up stories about them when writing their legends. Just because the stories are faked doesn't mean the people they were written about never existed.
-
I just believe he exists. I believe he's the only God, and that a personal element can still exist, but as I said before, divine intervention is probably rare in life.
It's like Beowulf or Gilgamesh. They probably did exist as great kings, but people made up stories about them when writing their legends. Just because the stories are faked doesn't mean the people they were written about never existed.
It's possible, and Arthur as well, but the fiction about them is arguably so far removed from reality that it's impossible to ascribe any accuracy to them at all, when it comes to describing the actual person they're about.
I believe that something moved first, but I don't believe the mover is worthy of the title "god".
That said, we can always find common ground. For instance, both you and I quoted Blanko in our sigs. I'm pretty sure that discredits both of our opinions. ;)
-
I think religion is simply an early form of government, and prayer is so that the governed are reminding themselves who their governor is. If you remind yourself multiple times a day your all-seeing overlord is watching and judging you, you're less likely to deviate from their guidance, rather than a weekly or monthly sort of thing.
It's similar to why children overall tend to behave a bit better as Christmas approaches. Santa, being a gift-giving all-seeing overlord, will withhold his reward if you are naughty. Of course kids only really think about that during Christmas vacation, so it has no impact on their behavior during the other 51 weeks of the year. Imagine if kids had to pray/confess to Santa multiple times a day, always reminding themselves Santa is making his list and checking it twice.
-
I think that Rush may have a point here. Although I am a religious man, I don't doubt that religion is a form of govt. @ the very least, its been used as that. Oscar quoted Marx @ some length on how religion was used by the haves over the have-nots. I don't have that quote ready to hand, but it was a good one. In fact, the oft said statement 'religion is the opiate of the masses' was never actually said in so many words, I don't think. But Marx's (& the Communist thinkers after him) attitude on religion, to my understanding (as I read Mao, @ any rate) was that it was given to the masses to distract them from bettering themselves here, by making them believe in a deferred betterment, if you will. Of course, these men couldn't have seen the rise of Liberation Theology or the Social Gospel. Were Marx alive today, he might view religion very differently. Oscar, feel free to join in. You know your Marx better than I do, which is a bit embarrassing, since I'm the card-carrying Communist, but hey, we all have our
-
strengths. Mine are religion & Renaissance British History. Still catching up on Marx. I became a Communist because I liked Mao. A bit backward, I know. Anyway, find that quote if you can, Oscar. Thanks.
-
I became a Communist because I liked Mao.
You became a Communist because you liked the worst person to ever happen to Chinese history? Are you fucking kidding me?
-
That depends on how you look @ Mao. He did a great deal of good for China. He did a great deal of bad for China. Had he died in 1950, he'd be a Saint. 1957, a hero. 1966, a flawed but still decent man. He had the misfortune of living too long. But he made China what it is today. W/o him, it would still be a backward shithole, batted around by the British, French, & Russians.
-
Are you fucking kidding me?
(http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Troll.png)
-
That depends on how you look @ Mao. He did a great deal of good for China. He did a great deal of bad for China. Had he died in 1950, he'd be a Saint. 1957, a hero. 1966, a flawed but still decent man. He had the misfortune of living too long. But he made China what it is today. W/o him, it would still be a backward shithole, batted around by the British, French, & Russians.
What kind of historian are you?! There's no such thing as "backward". Going by that line of thought you think we're all on one line of progression rather than different cultures and versions of progression. If you mean they wouldn't be as industrialized - maybe. But you can't know that for sure. There may have been a decent leader who didn't force people into starvation and communal living. Most of their "progression" came after his death as he seriously fucked over China.
-
Given that the alternative to Chairman Mao was Chiang Kai-shek, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I won't dispute that Mao became corrupt in later yrs (anyone who takes off the red glasses can see that), but the Generalissimo started as such. Given the choice between the two,...
-
Chairman Mao only had one testicle. This is a fact unlike the widely spread falsehood that Hitler did.
-
Actually, he had 2, but according to his dr's personal memoirs, 1 was undescended.
-
In fact, the oft said statement 'religion is the opiate of the masses' was never actually said in so many words, I don't think.
Of course not, Marx was German.
It's a translation.
-
I think I recall the essay. It was 'Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society'. I agree, Mao's earliest work was his best. I still maintain that I'm a Maoist, but that's a subject for another thread. I wish I had more time for Marx, Lenin, & more Mao. But I'm finally starting work on my dissertation, & that's going to take all of my time for reading & research.
-
(like The Beatles, Mao's earlier work was his best)
That's a bold assertion, that the Beatles' earlier work was their best.
-
I'll agree that Mao's early work was his best, but I always thought Sergeant Pepper's was the Beatles' best, 1967.
-
I'll agree that Mao's early work was his best, but I always thought Sergeant Pepper's was the Beatles' best, 1967.
We agree on something. I always felt they never really hit their stride until Revolver.
-
I'm inclined to agree, Roundy. I always thought they went through a maturation period that improved their work.
-
That's a bold assertion, that the Beatles' earlier work was their best.
Really? I thought it was a "safe" opinion.
Oh, come on. Are you trolling?
Most people would name either Sgt Peppers, The White Album, or Revolver as their favorite Beatles album.
Their early stuff was bubblegum.
-
Interestingly, both essays were 1st (the one I mentioned) & 2nd (the one you mentioned) in The Selected Works of Chairman Mao in 5 Volumes, volume 1. As an interesting aside, I've got vol. 5, which is hard to obtain today, as only a few were printed before his death. Today you can only get 4.