Getting Intimate Through Prayer

[Tyler]

In a commencement speech given by David Foster in 2005 at Kenyon College I started on a thought process through my first readings in my Spirituality and Presence class. Foster argues that we as humans experience things that support our own "default" mind set that we are in-fact the absolute center of the universe; the realest, most vivid, and important person in existence. Rarely do we talk about such a perspective because its self-centeredness and because it's socially repulsive, but it's pretty much the same for all of us, deep down. Whether or not I agree with him on this matter remains to be decided but delving further into his speech he starts to talk about the day to day grind and how we as a modern society are so caught up in the rat race that the person who cut you off is an asshole in your mind, never mind that his son is in the backseat with a life-threatening illness or injury, the fact that out of all the people, he chose to cut you off, is insulting in your mind. When we stand in line at the grocery store, everyone is in front of us yet we care not that we are in front of someone else. In the day to day, we lose sight of the things that should be most basic to us. Take the short story he opened with:

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the Hell is water?"

We've become so discriminate with, not only ourselves, but others, that we've begun to progress into a mindset where we're ignoring the basics of life. When we're sitting in traffic, when we're standing in line, when we finally realize that maybe some people have a higher priority than us on the road, we've begun to get wet.

To break free from this solipsism we need to begin to become intimate with ourselves and others; we need to be able to go beyond not only asking what water is, but what effect the water has on us. Abraham Joshua Heschel has a very interesting article called The Sabbath: Architecture of time that really begins to open up this issue in a new light.

His basic argument in this article works through the nature and celebration of Shabbat, or the Jewish Sabbath as it is known. His argument is that Judaism, a religion of time, not space, symbolizes and sanctifies time though the veneration of the Sabbath. Additionally there are other aspect to his article, but to stay on point he argues that "we cannot conquer time through space. We can only master time in time." What does he mean by this? I'm sure there are just as many correct answers as there are incorrect answers but that is kind of the point: Is this a sign of linguistic poverty, or rather an indication of an unwarped view of the world, of not equating reality with thinghood? He continues on talking about some of the festivals and celebrations of Judaism such as Passover, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Booths, and points out of these celebrations that the unique events of historic time were spiritually more significant than the repetitive processes in the cycle of nature, even through physical sustenance depended on the latter.

As I previously mentioned, Judaism being a religion of time, it aims at the sanctification of time. Unlike the space-minded men to whom all hours are alike, qualitiless, empty shells, the Bible senses the diversified character of time. There are no two hours alike. Every hour is unique and the only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious.

Think about Judaism and the Hebrew Bible for a moment. What things are the earliest example of holy? Is it the creation of the Trees of Life and Knowledge of Good and Evil? Is it the theophany on the Mount, is it the actual appearance of G-d in the burning bush? While all of these things are indeed holy in their own right they are not the first, most holy thing in the Bible. In fact, the first time the word “qadosh” was used in the Bible, is in reference to the seventh day in which G-d rested.



Rest. Holy. Two ideas that we’re all pretty familiar with to their own respective degree, but how often do we put the two together? What, exactly, defines what is rest and what is holy? This is where my questioning comes to play.

To me, rest is the point where both mentally and physically you are at one with your natural self. All the worries of the day have settled into their own corner of the mind, the aching of the back, feet, head, and legs subsides to the comfort of whatever position you find yourself in at the time, and you can truly focus on the thing[s] in which bring you closer to whatever it is you’re spiritual with.

Holy, on the other hand, has many different connotations. What I hold holy in my heart and mind might be frivolous information and ideas to another. But, this thing, this activity, this action, what ever “this” is remains the upmost important thing in one’s life. Taking the traditional idea of religion out of the picture, imagine a person that we all probably know, someone who is self-proclaimed atheist and spends their time against any ideas of religion, yet when they’re on their laptop at the coffee shop, they’re suspicious of anyone in their area because that person might be invading their privacy, looking at their computer screen and seeing what they hold as “qadosh.” They don’t want to share it because to them, what they do on that computer, the thing that allows veneration of their sacred, is so intimate to them that they feel violated with uninvited infringements. When this person is on their computer, they are praying to their g-d, they are venerating their “qadosh,” they are being intimate with themselves the best way they know how.

(Yes I know I went a bit far with this example but bear with me)

Now, take someone like me. I am a very spiritual person, religious, and to me, the computer, the sacred to my qadosh, is prayer. Prayer is the ultimate intimacy for me because it is what I use to connect to the most important “this” in my life: G-d. Yes, I am saying that to me, prayer is more intimate than sex in a number of ways. When I invite someone to pray with me, to listen, to watch, to witness me pray in any way shape or form, or am invited by someone to do the same to them, I feel that I am sharing the most humanly intimate possible connection. Contingent to this fact, is that I or any other person is actually praying. There are those, for instance, some Muslims, whom do the actions, say the words, and adhere to cleanliness aspects of ritual prayer, but their prayers are, for lack of a better word, still born.

When one prays, as they have for a long time, they know what they’re expecting and have already formed a bond and love with it. However, if one prays without the understanding and consciousness of what they’re doing, they are doing nothing more than delivering a stillborn action. The purpose and meaning is not there but the shell of existence is. In order to share this intimacy you must give birth to a living prayer.

It is this connection, the connection to whatever is qadosh to a person, that will eventually end the solipsism I mentioned earlier that according to Foster, is the default of human nature. When we can finally do this, we must keep in mind, that not only need we be aware of water and that others swim in it, but we must remind ourselves: this is water, this is water, this is water.



Is it unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive, day in and day out, but it is not impossible. We must learn to be intimate once again, and for me, the most intimate thing one can do with another, is pray.

[KyleTheJustin]

I think praying to an invisible man in the sky who grants wishes to random followers based on his own volition kind of negates the idea of praying being legitimate and even worthwhile. However, I respect much of what you wrote and find trouble in much of what you wrote. You claim that prayer is "more intimate than sex," and invite others to watch you perform an act that does little more than makes you less crazy for talking to yourself. Again, I respect belief and raised Catholic for a good portion of my life, but the thought of praying always had me wondering what the hell (no pun intended) it was for. By process of sheer chance you may end up with, say, 50% of all your prayers being "answered," but that hardly identifies that any spiritual or higher being contributed to whatever it is you prayed for. But, that aside, that delves into a different debate regarding religion as a whole, which, to keep this topic on topic, we'll save for another time.

Praying, to me, gives people hope in something they are hoping for in the future; an idea that seems ludicrous and provides nothing more than a way to close their eyes at night and feel that they are that much closer to God, or the Smurfs, or even Gandalf from Lord of the Rings--each of these entities holding just as much solid ground as the big G man. Totally disregarding the fact that I think prayer is bogus, what you stated has a lot of great importance and a lot of "alright, dude, now you're just being really weird." There are hundreds of thousands of ways to be intimate, one of which happens to be smoking a hookah with great friends around a table. Prayer, if it means this much to you, seems to be a valid form of intimate connection, but I feel that the connection can only be made between you and another person, not a mythical man (or woman, if you want to disestablish the patriarchy that is religion) in the sky who bends the idea of the "divine plan" to suit your needs and wants. Because at the end of the day, no matter what, prayer bases itself around one idea: my wants. Surely one can argue that your "wants" contribute to the greater good, but one must define and identify thoroughly the greater good on a grand scale before asking Papa Smurf to help mom rid herself of cancer. I'm sure she's not the only one in need of assistance.

[Dr. B]

I implore you, Kyle, to address his post without any pretense. I understand that the point of his post is to express his sentiments regarding prayer; but the direct object of his post, prayer, can be substituted with anything we as individuals hold dear. Think about when you are most at rest and define to yourself or others why you consider those circumstances sacred.

Now pretend you vocalize your opinion about what is near and dear to your heart, only to have it immediately berated by people who you know know nothing of which they speak, evidenced by the lack of understanding and competence in their responses. Would you excuse their behavior?

[KyleTheJustin]

Lack of understanding and competence? I think what I stated shows a great deal of understanding. Much of what I said appreciates the idea behind finding your "peaceful" place, but I think you misguide your "reasonable" responses in defense of the soft spot that I just poked. To label a post challenging his viewpoints as one which lacks competence in and of itself proves your attempts to silence dissent on a "touchy" subject. I [i]respect[/i] FSU and his viewpoints, as that was made clear thoughout my post, but I'm not going to, nor will I ever subject myself to accepting something so completely out of this world. I [i]appreciate[/i] his stance on the "neutral place" idea, which of course can lead one to extrapolate what they will from that post metaphorically, but I just find much of what was said to be bogus and very nonsensical. FSU is an incredibly intelligent person and I don't hold his beliefs against him in any shape or form, just as I don't with every other individual.

It still boggles my mind that you have the audacity to make such a claim as "lack of competence" and stating that I know little to nothing of the topic at hand. To quote myself, which is rather odd, "Again, I respect belief and was raised Catholic for a good portion of my life..." So, yes, Dr. B, I know exactly what I'm talking about when referring to the complete redundancy of praying. It's cute at best that you stick up for one of your friends on a hookah forum, but it nevertheless helps identify the separation between petty attacks and questioning the topic in a logical manner, which, most of the time, you tend to do more often than not.

As far as me vocalizing what is near and dear to my heart, only to have it berated by someone else makes my world turn. If everyone agreed on the same thing, which is oddly enough what you just promoted yet again, then we'd all attend church and talk to ourselves at the side of our bed at night hoping for that new BMW or the blonde down the street. My post attacks the idea of prayer, religion, and the contents in the speech. If you wish to assimilate that with FSU than that is your problem to deal with.

[Dr. B]

Maybe I should use words that shouldn't be taken literally next time I reply. I was suggesting to you that the content of your initial response did not convey that you understood the point of his post - it seemed like a rant about your particular opinion about the process of belief rather than a consideration of belief as a means to achieve peace and harmony. I so chose to "call you out" because I thought your reply missed the target completely and not to berate you myself. I don't have any ill will toward you. The phrase "lack of... competence" was in reference to how your post managed to stagnate largely on combating his means for peace (prayer) rather than his defense of finding peace. It is not a suggestion that you don't know anything about religion. Edited January 23, 2010 by Dr. B

[Dr. B]

P.S.

I forgot to clarify that I don't think that you did not contribute anything. Merely, I believe the topic at hand is different from on what the majority of your response concentrated. Edited January 23, 2010 by Dr. B

[KyleTheJustin]

Very understandable. I think the appreciative elements of my post were lost in the anti-religion overtones:) I did take away quite a bit from that speech, but it's just in my nature to challenge the essence of the material behind it; 5 years of literary criticism tends to make you see past the blatant message and attack the roots of the problem, in this case it was religion and prayer. On one hand I most certainly combat the idea of finding peace through prayer, and then the other hand slaps myself in the face for questioning someone's happiness, no matter what the means of achieving it may be. So instead of talking to myself in hopes of chance playing in my favor, I slap myself to reinforce that there is multiple forms of crazy out there:) I think a more appealing topic, especially in such a vast variety of people, would search for each and every individual's path to peace and tranquility. That topic may avoid any confrontation with religious propaganda due to the fact that everyone, at least hopefully, finds peace through some activity.

[Dr. B]

Well put. I especially like your consideration of an individual's personal comforts and your awareness of the contradictory approach to your endorsement - I think we all have similar struggles. From my experience, however, I'm led to believe that if religion is the avenue by which you find comfort you still ought not dwell on merely identifying with a church (institution) - though I will not rule that out entirely - but rather begin to define the "why" surrounding your faith rather than the "what". What seems like an elementary approach to questioning one's spirituality opens doors for a greater level of understanding of one's self.

Further, there is no absolute logical parameter that defines those with faith and those without. That is to say that perhaps some people exist who tend to accredit the majority or all of their happiness to ideals rooted in their faith; and there are those who consider the minority or none of their happiness associated with faith; and those in between. In my situation, for sake of a brief example, I habitually find myself smiling at the beautiful day in front of me: reveling in the beauty of nature and nothing more; and it makes me happy. To illustrate the distinction between individuals standing on either side of the line of absolutism (regardless of degree or magnitude of attribution) I confess that I do sometimes think of my faith when I revel, dwell, meditate, or even pray on my happiness - I don't consider them distinct, necessarily. For that reason, and knowing that everybody defines their spirituality differently, I find it fitting that I advocate circumnavigating and qualms about what the means to happiness are nominally and instead champion a self-examination in effort to understand why and how certain means function.

I champion the practice of defining myself as a whole as greater than the sum of the parts, especially with regards to what makes me happy. Conglomerating all the different things that make me happy into a simpler, concrete expression of how they make me happy and why... causes me to be self-aware; which is nominally one reason I can be happy.

/ramblings

[KyleTheJustin]

I agree. Both of my roommates use religion as a tool to help better themselves and help those around them; to them this defines religion. I, on the other hand, don't believe in the idea of a higher power, but I most certainly appreciate the betterment of oneself and others, thus placing my respect for true followers of religion right amongst the rest of the world. I have said and will always say that differences keep the world united, because through those differences, no matter how big or how small, the underlying person behind the ideas and/or beliefs usually turns out to share more in common than they do it combat.

[Tyler]

[b][size="4"]I read though each reply and commented as I would if I were here to read them as soon as they posted, therefore each comment evolves in understanding as my responses continue.
[/size][/b]









I think praying to an invisible man in the sky who grants wishes to random followers based on his own volition kind of negates the idea of praying being legitimate and even worthwhile. However, I respect much of what you wrote and find trouble in much of what you wrote.

[b]To start, did you even read it all. While I definitely disagree with your ideas and doubt your knowledge of my faith you seem to start with an anti-religious agenda – which has no bearing on the actual argument in the post.[/b]

You claim that prayer is "more intimate than sex," and invite others to watch you perform an act that does little more than makes you less crazy for talking to yourself. Again, I respect belief and raised Catholic for a good portion of my life, but the thought of praying always had me wondering what the hell (no pun intended) it was for.

[b]Again, I wonder if you read, and if you did, I know you did not understand. You also seem to be very misinformed about what prayer is, which if you were raised Catholic as you said, could be attributed to the limited definitions in the C.Catechism.[/b]

By process of sheer chance you may end up with, say, 50% of all your prayers being "answered," but that hardly identifies that any spiritual or higher being contributed to whatever it is you prayed for. But, that aside, that delves into a different debate regarding religion as a whole, which, to keep this topic on topic, we'll save for another time.

[b]There are many types of prayer and you seem only to address the prayer of supplication, that is not the main type of prayer or the type of intimacy and sacred I address in the thread. For instance, most people in your view usually view Buddhism as more legit than Christianity; however, they do not understand Buddhism either – the meditation is the prayer in the sense I am talking about. Meditation is not prayer of supplication.[/b]

Praying, to me, gives people hope in something they are hoping for in the future; an idea that seems ludicrous and provides nothing more than a way to close their eyes at night and feel that they are that much closer to God, or the Smurfs, or even Gandalf from Lord of the Rings--each of these entities holding just as much solid ground as the big G man. Totally disregarding the fact that I think prayer is bogus, what you stated has a lot of great importance and a lot of "alright, dude, now you're just being really weird."

[b]For people of faith, their prayer is the way to strengthen their bond with their G-d/god/whatever it is you pray too. Just because you do not adhere to the belief in G-d does not mean it is wrong, just as you’re not wrong in your beliefs, assuming they’re not able to be completely disproved for whatever reason, whatever it is you hold sacred would be what you pray to, hence the computer analogy.[/b]

There are hundreds of thousands of ways to be intimate, one of which happens to be smoking a hookah with great friends around a table. Prayer, if it means this much to you, seems to be a valid form of intimate connection, but I feel that the connection can only be made between you and another person, not a mythical man (or woman, if you want to disestablish the patriarchy that is religion) in the sky who bends the idea of the "divine plan" to suit your needs and wants.



[b]Yes there are many ways to be intimate; my argument is that prayer is the ultimate way. Now, again, since you didn’t seem to follow the thread, the prayer I am talking about is not solely speaking of Christian/Muslim/Jewish/ect...prayer as you think you understand it. Prayer is building the bond between what is your “this,” the “qadosh” and sacred in your life and mind.[/b]

Because at the end of the day, no matter what, prayer bases itself around one idea: my wants. Surely one can argue that your "wants" contribute to the greater good, but one must define and identify thoroughly the greater good on a grand scale before asking Papa Smurf to help mom rid herself of cancer. I'm sure she's not the only one in need of assistance.

[b]See earlier response to supplication. But this response is an ironic yet prime example of the solipsism I was talking about, people want to hear but not listen, they want to look but not see, they want to do whatever it is that will not challenge their beliefs, because if people start to question what they believe, they might find it hard to admit they were wrong or misunderstood.[/b]

I implore you, Kyle, to address his post without any pretense. [b][u]I understand that the point of his post is to express his sentiments regarding prayer; but the direct object of his post, prayer, can be substituted with anything we as individuals hold dear.[/u][/b] Think about when you are most at rest and define to yourself or others why you consider those circumstances sacred.

Now pretend you vocalize your opinion about what is near and dear to your heart, only to have it immediately berated by people who you know know nothing of which they speak, evidenced by the lack of understanding and competence in their responses. Would you excuse their behavior?

[b]That’s a more direct way of putting what I said in my response but since I was late I feel it necessary to address you directly like you, I guess, did to me.[/b]

Lack of understanding and competence? I think what I stated shows a great deal of understanding.

[b]No.[/b]

Much of what I said appreciates the idea behind finding your "peaceful" place, but I think you misguide your "reasonable" responses in defense of the soft spot that I just poked. To label a post challenging his viewpoints as one which lacks competence in and of itself proves your attempts to silence dissent on a "touchy" subject.

[b]Not at all, he merely pointed out your complete misunderstanding of the point of the thread. It’s not because you’re stupid, because you’re not, but you hold too strong onto the stigmas attached to the words I used and instead of understanding the argument your pre-conceived notions took over and blinded you from reading the points and you read your own agenda into it.[/b]

I [i]respect[/i] FSU and his viewpoints, as that was made clear thoughout my post, but I'm not going to, nor will I ever subject myself to accepting something so completely out of this world. I [i]appreciate[/i] his stance on the "neutral place" idea, which of course can lead one to extrapolate what they will from that post metaphorically, but I just find much of what was said to be bogus and very nonsensical. FSU is an incredibly intelligent person and I don't hold his beliefs against him in any shape or form, just as I don't with every other individual.

[b]Thank you, but at the same time, I think your misunderstandings are what is leading to the seeming frustration. Nothing I said requires faith, as you know it, in G-d or any other religious adherence a la textbook definition.[/b]

It still boggles my mind that you have the audacity to make such a claim as "lack of competence" and stating that I know little to nothing of the topic at hand. To quote myself, which is rather odd, "Again, I respect belief and was raised Catholic for a good portion of my life..." So, yes, Dr. B, I know exactly what I'm talking about when referring to the complete redundancy of praying. It's cute at best that you stick up for one of your friends on a hookah forum, but it nevertheless helps identify the separation between petty attacks and questioning the topic in a logical manner, which, most of the time, you tend to do more often than not.

[b]*Broken record* He simply pointed out your flaws in understanding, he did not attack nor did he post to “stick up” for me. I’m going to stop posting that you completely misunderstood the thread because instead of having the hunch you might have, I now know that you did due to your own quoting yourself for emphasis on a completely illegitimate point.[/b]

As far as me vocalizing what is near and dear to my heart, only to have it berated by someone else makes my world turn. If everyone agreed on the same thing, which is oddly enough what you just promoted yet again, then we'd all attend church and talk to ourselves at the side of our bed at night hoping for that new BMW or the blonde down the street. My post attacks the idea of prayer, religion, and the contents in the speech. If you wish to assimilate that with FSU than that is your problem to deal with.

[b]What exactly is it that you hold most sacred, “quadosh,” to what do you “pray?” And when I say pray, I do not mean prayer in the sense you’ve been approaching it this entire time. Reread the thread and try to understand it. And I am not saying meditation, prayer of supplication, or any other kind of “religious” practice is the only type of prayer; I think I clearly laid out with the example what “prayer” is. [/b]

Maybe I should use words that shouldn't be taken literally next time I reply. I was suggesting to you that the content of your initial response did not convey that you understood the point of his post [b][u]- it seemed like a rant about your particular opinion about the process of belief rather than a consideration of belief as a means to achieve peace and harmony[/u][/b]. I so chose to "call you out" because I thought your reply missed the target completely and not to berate you myself. I don't have any ill will toward you. The phrase "lack of... competence" was in reference to how your post managed to stagnate largely on combating his means for peace (prayer) rather than his defense of finding peace. It is not a suggestion that you don't know anything about religion.

[b]Exactly my thoughts, mind you, I am reading these threads as they would have been posting if I were on the forum to catch them at that moment, so I have no knowledge of what you said but am trying to give you a genuine evolving understanding and conversation.[/b]

Very understandable. I think the appreciative elements of my post were lost in the anti-religion overtones:) I did take away quite a bit from that speech, but it's just in my nature to challenge the essence of the material behind it; 5 years of literary criticism tends to make you see past the blatant message and attack the roots of the problem, [b]in this case it was religion and prayer[/b]. On one hand I most certainly combat the idea of finding peace through prayer, and then the other hand slaps myself in the face for questioning someone's happiness, no matter what the means of achieving it may be. So instead of talking to myself in hopes of chance playing in my favor, I slap myself to reinforce that there is multiple forms of crazy out there:) I think a more appealing topic, especially in such a vast variety of people, would search for each and every individual's path to peace and tranquility. That topic may avoid any confrontation with religious propaganda due to the fact that everyone, at least hopefully, finds peace through some activity.

[b]This response fortifies my understanding that you did not understand my origonal thread. Yet, it seems that you jump to the other side when you talk about “questioning someone’s happiness” which I think you’re using my prayer in the sense you understand it as my happiness but you don’t associate the other persons’ happiness, such as what one would call your “prayer.” Remember, I am not saying “prayer” in terms of a strictly religious practice.[/b]

Well put. I especially like your consideration of an individual's personal comforts and your awareness of the contradictory approach to your endorsement - I think we all have similar struggles. From my experience, however[b][u], I'm led to believe that if religion is the avenue by which you find comfort you still ought not dwell on merely identifying with a church (institution) - though I will not rule that out entirely - but rather begin to define the "why" surrounding your faith rather than the "what[/u][/b]". What seems like an elementary approach to questioning one's spirituality opens doors for a greater level of understanding of one's self.

Further, there is no absolute logical parameter that defines those with faith and those without. That is to say that perhaps some people exist who tend to accredit the majority or all of their happiness to ideals rooted in their faith; and there are those who consider the minority or none of their happiness associated with faith; and those in between. In my situation, for sake of a brief example, I habitually find myself smiling at the beautiful day in front of me: reveling in the beauty of nature and nothing more; and it makes me happy. To illustrate the distinction between individuals standing on either side of the line of absolutism (regardless of degree or magnitude of attribution) I confess that I do sometimes think of my faith when I revel, dwell, meditate, or even pray on my happiness - I don't consider them distinct, necessarily. For that reason, and knowing that everybody defines their spirituality differently, I find it fitting that I advocate circumnavigating and qualms about what the means to happiness are nominally and instead champion a self-examination in effort to understand why and how certain means function.

I champion the practice of defining myself as a whole as greater than the sum of the parts, especially with regards to what makes me happy. Conglomerating all the different things that make me happy into a simpler, concrete expression of how they make me happy and why... causes me to be self-aware; which is nominally one reason I can be happy.

/ramblings

[b][size="3"][font="Calibri"]This is a good example that will help me make my final point as at this time, this is the last response to the thread. For myself, and Dr.B, we both “pray” by praying. That was not redundant if you understand the thread’s origonal text. I challenge you to ask yourself, what do you hold sacred, where is your holy, what to you is “qadosh?” I have friends that “pray” when they hike in the woods and mountains, I have friends that “pray” by running, riding bikes, using computers, ect… it is the thing that is their sacred time, it is what they hold most important to them. I do not know what your assumption of my faith is and I will gladly take the time to explain it to you if you ask, but to build upon Dr.B’s point I highlighted, it is not about institution. I can personally only speak authoritatively on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as they are the only religions I have studied in enough depth and fervor to understand all the implementations of my statements, questions, and such. I implore you, if you took the time to read my reponses, to understand first that I did not mean in any way, shape, or form want to insult or offend you, but I hope you re-read my origonal post and even if you don’t agree, seek to understand the argument and points I make. The problem with a lot of the conversations that happen here or in life are that people want to make others agree or disagree and no one is fighting for understanding anymore. [/font][/size][/b]

[KyleTheJustin]

Well, I read through it a second time, and still standing by my initial posts regarding what you define as "textbook" praying, I still find it impossible to make the connection. What you're doing by combining the actions of sitting on a computer and praying leaves no room for anyone to dodge the religious/spiritual nonsense you're throwing their way! I sit on the computer and type back and forth to you because it interests me; fuck the "qadosh" and all that other nonsense that virtually says that an apple is an apple no matter what was you look at it. Look, I respect that your can identify what "true" prayer is, but to label nonsensical, everyday actions as "praying" is just absurd. I hope what's near and dear to me based on interest--a very "realist" way to imagine the situation. While I must admit that this whole process has got me thinking--thank you for that--it still does not defer me from my convictions to call my interests interests and not prayer for the sake having this awkward connection to God when I wipe twice in the morning after a nice deuce. Yes, my original attack of your post aimed itself clearly at the definition of prayer as I, and many other followers of religion, were taught. Your definition that you're trying to argue, however, does nothing to change my mind about my actions. You can call it prayer all you want, FSU. In fact, I hope that you do continue to call it prayer; however, coming from a position that challenges an unproven series of guidelines that people follow out of a number of the same texts in different languages, the idea of prayer, the "stillborn" prayer and your definition, provide fantasy and illusion into our lives that, in my opinion, need not be there.

Either way, this is a very interesting thought. I wouldn't give it two reads and this many responses if I didn't feel that way. Man, and to think that I was attacking stillborns;)

[KyleTheJustin]

I also need to stop posting after reading such long posts. My ability to catch common spelling errors goes out the window. Christ. No pun intended.

[Tyler]

I understand what you're saying but "to label nonsensical, everyday actions as "praying" is just absurd" is the comment that makes me a little put off. I am not saying that everyday actions are praying, at least not each every day action. Moreover, I was using the computer/hiking/ect.. as examples of things that could be substituted. Additionally, your statement of "What you're doing by combining the actions of sitting on a computer and praying leaves no room for anyone to dodge the religious/spiritual nonsense you're throwing their way!" I think again misunderstands the major point of the thread. We need to dismiss any stigmas and previous limited understandings of the word prayer as it is being re-defined and re-invented in a similar construct but new perspective. Again, I hope I didn't offend you in my previous responses as I am excited you're taking this seriously and putting in the time to conversate. But to ask again, think about the things you do, what kind of things lead to you feel most at rest and, using your definition of "happiness," makes you feel the most happy?

[Tyler]

[quote name='KyleTheJustin' date='23 January 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1264295145' post='447363']
I also need to stop posting after reading such long posts. My ability to catch common spelling errors goes out the window. Christ. No pun intended.
[/quote]


My spelling is horrendous no matter what I'm doing, have done, or am thinking of doing I wasn't given the spelling gene :-\

[KyleTheJustin]

haha! I'm gonna try my best this time to keep the spelling under control. I understand that you attribute prayer to specific actions, but one such specific action to you and I translates into millions/every action out there. Due to this, I see a great deal of problem and furthermore find it hard to believe that prayer now takes on the form of any activity that makes an individual happy. I know that train of thought encompasses an entire body of people but as I am an anarcho-socialist, it kind of just happens:/ On an individual basis, I can see the relevance and at least we are both on the same page in considering an action I deem as happiness and you considering praying.

To answer your question about what action(s) make me feel most at ease/rest and comfortable cannot be limited to one such action. Sometimes I find extreme relaxation and pleasure just sitting at home by myself, while other times I find relaxation in a large group of people. Sometimes I can smoke hookah and feel relaxed, other times I just want to drink six beers and watch Harry Potter. All of these actions, to me, come with both a side of relaxation and a side of "ehh." I can honestly say the same about different locations, as well. I love to be in the ocean and would like to be more than anything right now, but there still comes a time when that happiness becomes mundane and repetitious--eventually changing with time away from the particular place/object. Come to think of it, this may well be the problem that I have with this idea: how can one limit oneself to a particular action that they deem relaxing? If we are speaking in terms of all of those actions constituting what you deem as the re-definition of prayer then, yes, those things do it for me. But I, along with how you feel prayer is being redefined, feel that people's interest and methods of relaxation and peace change and evolve with the person. Does that make sense?

I'm not reading over that for spelling mistakes. I'm too lazy.

[Dr. B]

[quote name='KyleTheJustin' date='23 January 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1264294690' post='447361']
Well, I read through it a second time, and still standing by my initial posts regarding what you define as "textbook" praying, I still find it impossible to make the connection. What you're doing by combining the actions of sitting on a computer and praying leaves no room for anyone to dodge the religious/spiritual nonsense you're throwing their way! I sit on the computer and type back and forth to you because it interests me; fuck the "qadosh" and all that other nonsense that virtually says that an apple is an apple no matter what was you look at it. Look, I respect that your can identify what "true" prayer is, but to label nonsensical, everyday actions as "praying" is just absurd. I hope what's near and dear to me based on interest--a very "realist" way to imagine the situation. While I must admit that this whole process has got me thinking--thank you for that--it still does not defer me from my convictions to call my interests interests and not prayer for the sake having this awkward connection to God when I wipe twice in the morning after a nice deuce. Yes, my original attack of your post aimed itself clearly at the definition of prayer as I, and many other followers of religion, were taught. Your definition that you're trying to argue, however, does nothing to change my mind about my actions. You can call it prayer all you want, FSU. In fact, I hope that you do continue to call it prayer; however, coming from a position that challenges an unproven series of guidelines that people follow out of a number of the same texts in different languages, the idea of prayer, the "stillborn" prayer and your definition, provide fantasy and illusion into our lives that, in my opinion, need not be there.

Either way, this is a very interesting thought. I wouldn't give it two reads and this many responses if I didn't feel that way. Man, and to think that I was attacking stillborns;)
[/quote]
Though with some hesitance, I'm tempted to dismiss this as attacking a strawman

The relevance within your reply is confined to the insinuations of your distaste for watered-down faith, assuming your intention was to imply the appropriate order of reverence reserved for what you genuinely consider "prayer"; and even that assumption is generous.

The grand irony, I find, is that you, Kyle, are the one rebelling against order and structure and absolutism for favor of an abstract, "true", "realist", genuine approach to what ought to be considered sacred; yet you, when faced with both the task of understanding the subjectivity of the objects of our appreciation and the task of comprehending that FSU's utilization of prayer is a part of a simile, juxtaposed against all other means of appreciation in order to supplement our cognitive ability to just plain understand what he's saying; you are bereft of ability.

Bear with me, for I know my words are poignant but I assure you they are not bellicose. I instilled them with connotation on purpose this time around; but my implications are not of aggression, hatred, belittlement, or arrogance: they are of sheer and utter confusion. To be blunt: I think you need to stop worrying about your opinion of organized religion and approach FSU's contentions without prejudice so that you may understand, although not agree with perhaps, that the only persuasive interest it appears FSU has is to convince others that this awesome bond that we can establish with the objects of our affection, whatever they may be, by intense focus and consideration, is a highly potent and satisfying force and for that simple reason should not be overlooked in the pursuit of happiness.


I hope that you don't think I'm trying to condescend you nor that I am a belligerent person. This kind of mental masturbation makes me happy and I am thus sparing myself the humiliation of potentially being labeled a hypocrite by abstaining from it.

[Dr. B]

Wow. I just read what followed that post and now think I may have come off a little harsh. You cleared some things up, Kyle, but my only consideration now is that perhaps you have not found what makes you truly happy - or perhaps that what does make you truly happy is having such a dynamic opinion of consideration. I admit, I was blind to that possibility before as I myself am inclined to think static things will continue to make me happy. I learned something today

[KyleTheJustin]

Dr. B, don't trip, man. I respect the hell out of what you say; by now you should now this! I, too, think that there is truly something out there that will in fact make my "happy" and fulfill the void that FSU brings to the table. Discussions like that one we just had truly does being a new light into my life. I appreciate honest discourse and love a good argument. Nothing in the world make me happier knowing that there are similarities present in even the most opposite of beings. That, if it makes sense, can be seen as my form of "prayer" in FSU's eyes:) Man, this is getting to soft and accepting! Let's spice it up a bit! Religion sucks! Suck on that, FSU!

[KyleTheJustin]

And, you know what, I respect the fact that all three of us can walk away from this and say that we learned something. It's not often that you find such blatant differences that inevitably turns into mutual understanding and respect through structure dialogue and respect. That is true beauty in my opinion.

[Tyler]

Hebrews 4:12

[b][sup][size="2"]12[/size][/sup][/b]For the word of G-d is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

This is what I feel from my "prayer." Not prayer in the stigma-saturated word that you know it as a strictly religious practice, but prayer in the sense I described in the origonal topic. My G-d is obvious in my faith; however, it is easily interchangable with what you hold as holy, your sacred, your "qadosh."

[KyleTheJustin]

You're a...qad...osh...

[Dr. B]

useful post...

[KyleTheJustin]

You really don't have a joking side, do you?

[Dr. B]

This serious dizcussion threadz r serious bizness

[KyleTheJustin]

lolol. Thank you for proving me wrong.