All Comments (17)

flat flat buy apartment

flat flat buy apartament

nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk

remont kvartir svarka vatutinki kvartira arenda perplanirovka kvartir arenda kvartir dolgostrochno kvartiry m frunzenskaya kvartiry gorod dolgoprudnyy 2 aya kvartira pokupka kvartir g ufa remont kvartir g podolsk

What strikes me as really interesting, and also important and sad, about much of the commentary here is how a simple, personal reflection on the practice of inward listening, with no insistence on anyone accepting any doctrinal or dogmatic baggage whatsoever, has provoked reponses that sound as though Bill Tully had stung the respondents with hot needles. It sounds as though a lot of personal history, perhaps painful history with religion, is filtering the hearing of what was actually said. I sympathize: religion has much to answer for in the ways in which it has hurt people and damaged our world. But if we can't quiet our inner turmoil enough to listen to each other with care and respect, simply because of our shared humanity, to hear both the value people have found for millennia in religion and spirituality, and the grievances others have against it, how can we begin to alter the world of howling outrage and conflict we see every day on the nightly news?

Sorry, my (typo) and comment above.

Hi DAB (is that a name?), you said:

". . . and why, by the way, do atheists reduce every religious statement to whether or not it "proves" God exists?"

I don't know, do you want to guess why?

While you're solving (or insisting upon dogmatic solutions to) geometry problems in your theology class, why not pause and prove the source of those beliefs (all of nature, the universe, all beings) you insist the rest of the class respect for no reason whatsoever.

Thank you.

Given the cornucopia of religious deities and thought in the world, one must ask the question: what is so special about Christianity (or any of the other faiths for that matter)? One earlier poster made this point rather poorly with his/her comment substituting Zeus for God.

Ernst Cassirer wrote quite eloquently about this in his essays regarding language and myth. How an animist sort of experience evolves into a functional religion (a god for war, one for agriculture) and finally an independent deity freed from history by linguistic forgetfulness.

The natural evolution here is from animism to functionalism to monotheism, from passion to petitionary prayer to contemplation. That this evolution has taken place is the implied answer to the Zeus question: we no longer pray for rain, we're sophisticated, mature, we contemplate, 'listen'.

I actually agree that this evolution is both correct and desirable. By focusing on contemplation (or listening) rather than petition we are more mature. However I must take issue with those who still insist on a metaphysics that specifies a particular manifestation associated with prayer. By this I mean Judeo/Christian God versus Brahma versus Allah, Jesus versus Bhudda versus Mohammed.

What if we went one step further and simply said: we really don't know much from a metaphysically specific point of view, but we often have an experience of the universe that surpasses simply that implied by a reductivist explaination. A wholeness, a connectedness, a deep peace that leads us to believe that there is more here than meets the eye. Far more.

I think by evolving further in this manner we could eliminate a great deal of human misunderstanding and even anguish. Perhaps we could even save the human race and the planet we live on.

I agree that really the most important part of prayer is listening. "The Sovereign Lord ... wakens me morning by morning, wakens my ear to listen like one being taught"(Isa. 50:4). "God speaks--now one way, now another"(Job 33:14).

One way God speaks to us is through his written Word, the Holy Bible. Another is through his living Word, the Holy Spirit. He also speaks to us through his incarnate Word, the Word made flesh, first in his son Jesus Christ and now in his Church, the body of Christ on earth, in which He has appointed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, "to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God ... attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ!"(Eph. 4:11-13)

One of the best definitions of prayer I have ever come across is James Montgomery's hymn:

Prayer is the soul's sincere desire,
Uttered or unexpressed,
The motion of a hidden fire
That trembles in the breast.

Prayer is the burden of a sigh,
The falling of a tear,
The upward glancing of an eye
When none but God is near.

Prayer is the simplest form of speech
That infant lips can try;
Prayer the sublimest strains that reach
The Majesty on high.

Prayer is the contrite sinner's voice
Returning from his ways,
While angels in their songs rejoice,
And cry, "Behold, he prays!"

Prayer is the Christian's vital breath,
The Christian's native air;
His watchword at the gates of death.
He enters heaven with prayer.

O Thou, by whom we come to God,
The Life, the Truth, the Way,
The path of prayer Thyself hast trod;
Lord, teach us how to pray!

So, you meditate.

Is meditation prayer? If not, why? If so, what's up with all that hand-flayin', bible-thumpin', angst-ridden, tear-jerkin' ego-ridden dribble that roars from the "UberChurches" on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday?

I have yet to meet a fundamentalist christian who would shut up long enough to have a constructive converstion with.

I am SICK of their "sharing". It is creepy and I consider most of them mentally unstable.

Prayer is the silliest activity I can think of,
and recent studies have shown it to be quite useless.
I mean really....its so tenth century.

E FAVORITE - it's alright for anyone to use algebra provided they get it straight and don't resort to "straw math" the algebraic equal of "straw men."

Have you ever seen the demonstration of what can be accompolished through division by zero. ANY QUANTITY divided by ZERO can be made EQUAL TO ANYTHING one wishes. Of course to get away with that the divider must disguise zero in a variable, X being customery. Then one divides by X during a somewhat lengthy process involving absolute truths, identities, and substitutions. It's the mathematical equal of straw men, straw math.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is as good a case of division by zero as one needs to see how much good can come from it. Ball of fire is set equal to God, an extreme low, bush on fire is set equal to a zenith of one kind or the other. God is the creator while fire destroys? Turning the destroyer into the creator is a neat trick. But trick it is, don't you think?

DAB,

Agreed, “…you can't reasonably get mad at the philosophy department for not answering your algebra questions.” But what about when the philosophy department starts answering algebra questions?

I’m afraid that’s what organized religion often attempts to do.

So you want to call God "Zeus"? Not exactly original, but sure why not. God's called lots of things, but just changing the name doesn't by itself point up any inherent ridiculousness in the concept of God in the first place.

For that, you'd have to have a serious comparison between the ancient Greek conception of its God(s) and the monotheistic faiths' interpretations, and (to start to address Fr. Tully's points) Christianity in particular. I'm sure much ridiculousness in Christian belief can be found, satirized, and dismissed -- Lord knows I've done it at times myself for years, and while in church no less -- but I think at its heart the relationship between the ancient believers and their Zeus is different in a very basic way from the relationship between Christians (for example) and their God.

That isn't a proof that God exists, just a remark on the apposition of "Zeus" and "God" -- and why, by the way, do atheists reduce every religious statement to whether or not it "proves" God exists? It may be an important question to you, but you can't reasonably get mad at the philosophy department for not answering your algebra questions.

Anyway, I thought Fr. Tully's point on prayer was dead on, and a good reminder for me: I have to remember to listen if I'm going to see prayer as one of the ways I deepen my relationship with God. Or Zeus. Or Bob, or whatever I decide to call him/her that day.

Time for a Zeus experiment. The concept "Zeus" is no more rational or subject to verification than the concept "God". Notice how William has a special relationship through prayer (and "honest theologians"):

"Of course I could go much further, and I do within our faith family. I could talk about Zeus as we know Zeus in history, evoking what theologians honestly call “the scandal of particularity.” Above all, I would speak of Jesus of Nazareth in whose human face I believe we see Zeus."

I am beginning to picture Zeus as a bearded Jewish carpenter, or Willem DeFoe, I'm not sure which.

Thank you.

Wow, what a crock of crap!

Father Tully,

If you became a Buddhist, you would retain all of the benefits of your present practice, which you call "prayer", without having to spin your mental wheels ruminating about "God". Your new Buddhist practice would be more efficient and effective and you would gain, not lose, by making this change.