Prayer & God

[August1991]

Prayer? I have always thought that prayer is talking to yourself.

God? You, yourself. You are talking to yourself.

======

We all have an internal voice. Someone we talk with. I'm no psychologist (Kant/Freud invented this idea... ).

Last point: Some people have an internal voice that makes them feel good.

[French Patriot]

18 hours ago, August1991 said:

Prayer? I have always thought that prayer is talking to yourself.

God? You, yourself. You are talking to yourself.

======

We all have an internal voice. Someone we talk with. I'm no psychologist (Kant/Freud invented this idea... ).

Last point: Some people have an internal voice that makes them feel good.

Yes. Prayer is all about self motivation and you are the target of your praying. 

I see nothing wrong with religious people using their icon to help focus their thoughts, even if they are imaginary.

Atheists do the same, just with different icons.

The public praying is what most sages preach against, as I recall.

The intelligent will know why.

[August1991]

On 12/18/2023 at 1:53 PM, French Patriot said:

....

Atheists do the same, just with different icons.

....

Dunno.

====

Catholics pray by ritual. Orthodox stand and write notes. Hindus (like Buddhists) sit and bend. Muslims repeat to themselves phrases. Confucious burn paper.

We humans all talk to ourselves. All the time.

We all have an internal conversation.

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, mukinurmorad said:

it's also a way to tap into something bigger

How can you tell when it’s “bigger” or whether you’re still just having a chat with yourself?

[Nationalist]

On 12/17/2023 at 7:46 PM, August1991 said:

Prayer? I have always thought that prayer is talking to yourself.

God? You, yourself. You are talking to yourself.

======

We all have an internal voice. Someone we talk with. I'm no psychologist (Kant/Freud invented this idea... ).

Last point: Some people have an internal voice that makes them feel good.

Of course prayer is talking to yourself. Stearing your subconscious in a good direction.

Ever read a black mass? Same thing.

Which reminds me...

Current world events and the way the public has been used and abused in so many ways, makes me wonder...

Which Gawd do those inflicting such obscenities on people,

Pray to?

[Yakuda]

12 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Of course prayer is talking to yourself. Stearing your subconscious in a good direction.

Ever read a black mass? Same thing.

Which reminds me...

Current world events and the way the public has been used and abused in so many ways, makes me wonder...

Which Gawd do those inflicting such obscenities on people,

Pray to?

Lots of people pray to the "gawd" of moral relativism. 

[Nationalist]

20 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Lots of people pray to the "gawd" of moral relativism. 

Ahhh...the sliding rule of morality. Are the terms "Right" and "Wrong" absolute?

My position is that they are in pretty much every case, and here's why.

Ask any cop or military man who's had to kill someone...for any reason...if he/she felt "bad" or "remorse" over what they've done. The answer in the vast majority of cases is "Yes". We know instinctively what's right and what's wrong, but are sometimes forced to choose wrong. Does that damn a person? Somewhat yes. But if a person feels honest remorse...then IMO that remorse "cleanses" one's soul and allows for healing to take place.

However...should said person feel no remorse at all...well...Karma has a nasty way of dealing with such true evil.

[Yakuda]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ahhh...the sliding rule of morality. Are the terms "Right" and "Wrong" absolute?

My position is that they are in pretty much every case, and here's why.

Ask any cop or military man who's had to kill someone...for any reason...if he/she felt "bad" or "remorse" over what they've done. The answer in the vast majority of cases is "Yes". We know instinctively what's right and what's wrong, but are sometimes forced to choose wrong. Does that damn a person? Somewhat yes. But if a person feels honest remorse...then IMO that remorse "cleanses" one's soul and allows for healing to take place.

However...should said person feel no remorse at all...well...Karma has a nasty way of dealing with such true evil.

I quite agree that there is definitely right and wrong and that sometimes doing what's "wrong" is necessary for a higher purpose. 

I think what damns a person is intent not action alone. If I help an old lady across the street so i can steal her pocketbook there isn't much virtue in that. 

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I quite agree that there is definitely right and wrong and that sometimes doing what's "wrong" is necessary for a higher purpose. 

I think what damns a person is intent not action alone. If I help an old lady across the street so i can steal her pocketbook there isn't much virtue in that. 

Agreed.

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

We know instinctively what's right and what's wrong,

We agree!  No “higher power” needed if its instinctive, correct?

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

…sometimes doing what's "wrong" is necessary for a higher purpose. 

Wouldn’t that make it right then?  
 

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

If I help an old lady across the street so i can steal her pocketbook there isn't much virtue in that. 

Would you steal bread to feed a starving child?

[Yakuda]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

We agree!  No “higher power” needed if its instinctive, correct?

Wouldn’t that make it right then?  
 

Would you steal bread to feed a starving child?

No it doesn't. 

Yes only if I had no money and no other option existed but that doesn't make stealing right. It isn't right just because you think you have a good enough reason to do it. 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

14 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Yes only if I had no money and no other option existed but that doesn't make stealing right. 

It does make it necessary though, correct?  What would God do about it?  Is there punishment awaiting?

15 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

It isn't right just because you think you have a good enough reason to do it. 

If it’s not right, then I should let the child starve?

Isnt this a case of situational ethics?  The situation determines whether something is right or wrong.  Not the biblical commandment “thou shalt not steal”.  

Where is your biblical objective morality now?   You admit to breaking commandments in certain situations.  You’re now a secular humanist!

[Nationalist]

24 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

We agree!  No “higher power” needed if its instinctive, correct?

Wouldn’t that make it right then?  
 

Would you steal bread to feed a starving child?

TreeLeaves...doing the wrong thing is always wrong.

Being forced to do the wrong thing...and knowing you've done something wrong but that the circumstances forced you to act in such a manner, is forgivable.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Being forced to do the wrong thing...and knowing you've done something wrong but that the circumstances forced you to act in such a manner, is forgivable.

That’s called situational ethics and is a tenet of secular humanism.  You saying “it’s wrong but forgivable” is just another way of saying it’s not actually wrong!   LOL

If you want to play semantic games to say that the scenario is “wrong but forgivable” then I’m fine with that.  I will agree.  It’s wrong, but it’s completely forgivable.  So….  where did your objective morality disappear to?

[Yakuda]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

It does make it necessary though, correct?  What would God do about it?  Is there punishment awaiting?

Yes. I'm not God and I'm not his personal spokesman so I couldn't. Yes there is punishment but it is severely mitigated. 

If it’s not right, then I should let the child starve?

Did you not read what I wrote? If you didn't I won't bother with you any more. 

Isnt this a case of situational ethics?  The situation determines whether something is right or wrong.  Not the biblical commandment “thou shalt not steal”.  

No the situation doest make it right but the situation might make it necessary as you said above 

Where is your biblical objective morality now?   You admit to breaking commandments in certain situations.  You’re now a secular humanist!

No I'm not thank God. I admit to breaking them because I'm human not because I'm a humanist. 

 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s called situational ethics and is a tenet of secular humanism.  You saying “it’s wrong but forgivable” is just another way of saying it’s not actually wrong!   LOL

If you want to play semantic games to say that the scenario is “wrong but forgivable” then I’m fine with that.  I will agree.  It’s wrong, but it’s completely forgivable.  So….  where did your objective morality disappear to?

No its not. Do you always make silly leaps of logic like that?

Wait...I've read some of your posts. 'nough said.

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s called situational ethics and is a tenet of secular humanism.  You saying “it’s wrong but forgivable” is just another way of saying it’s not actually wrong!   LOL

If you want to play semantic games to say that the scenario is “wrong but forgivable” then I’m fine with that.  I will agree.  It’s wrong, but it’s completely forgivable.  So….  where did your objective morality disappear to?

No thats called excusing crappy behavior. The problem is people can find lots of "legitimate" reasons to do crappy stuff. Slavery wasn't moral when it was legal. 

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

No its not. Do you always make silly leaps of logic like that?

Wait...I've read some of your posts. 'nough said.

I think he does. 

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No it’s not.

Of course it is!  It’s semantics. 
Is it better to steal bread to save the child, or to watch the child die?

You’ve already answered….  So is it really objectively wrong to steal?  A yes answer would be cognitive dissonance if you would steal in certain situations for the greater good!

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No thats called excusing crappy behavior. The problem is people can find lots of "legitimate" reasons to do crappy stuff.

Isn’t it legitimate to steal bread to save a starving child?   You said it was 3 posts ago….

Edited February 1, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Of course it is!  It’s semantics. 
Is it better to steal bread to save the child, or to watch the child die?

You’ve already answered….  So is it really objectively wrong to steal?  A yes answer would be cognitive dissonance if you would steal in certain situations for the greater good!

Isn’t it legitimate to steal bread to save a starving child?   You said it was 3 posts ago….

You're getting emotional and not listening. This happens all the time with you folks 

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You're getting emotional and not listening. This happens all the time with you folks 

LOL

Maybe just answer the question?  You changed the scenario from saving a child to “excusing crappy behaviour “.   And pretending you can read my emotions through a computer screen. Thats you not discussing honestly.

Is it legitimate to steal bread to save a starving child for the greater good?

Edited February 1, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

LOL

Maybe just answer the question?

Is it legitimate to steal bread to save a starving child for the greater good?

You keep changing it in order to ask the same questions that's already been answered. 

Legitimate? I don't know but it's understandable but that doesnt make stealing right. AGAIN slavery wasn't moral, right or just when it was legal. 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I don't know but it's understandable but that doesnt make stealing right.

If stealing in that situation isn’t right, why would you do it?

[Yakuda]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

If stealing in that situation isn’t right, why would you do it?

To save a life. What don't you comprehend? The nature of the act doesn't change simply because there is or you think there is a justification for doing it. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

To save a life. What don't you comprehend? The nature of the act doesn't change simply because there is or you think there is a justification for doing it. 

Exactly.  Same reason I would. 
 

That’s situational ethics and is completely counter to biblical objective morality.  

What better describes the scenario we just worked through?  Did you follow biblical objective morality, (thou shalt not steal) or did you switch to situational ethics (got to save the child)?

 

 

In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation. There are no universal moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution. Situation ethics rejects 'prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules'.

[Nationalist]

30 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Exactly.  Same reason I would. 
 

That’s situational ethics and is completely counter to biblical objective morality.  

What better describes the scenario we just worked through?  Did you follow biblical objective morality, (thou shalt not steal) or did you switch to situational ethics (got to save the child)?

 

 

In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation. There are no universal moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution. Situation ethics rejects 'prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules'.

It does not make it "right". The situation can make it neccessary.

That you insist on conflating the 2 only exhibits your lack of understanding.