me too feral.mostly for strength to deal with some of the yahoos you run into at this time of year!!

Free Will – Choice, keep these in mind, shall we.

Prayer – an offering, keep this in mind also.

What can one offer the divinity of the universe? What is the perfect gift for the Creator who has everything, and if something is found to be lacking, It can create it?

Let’s venture to guess what such a creator would ‘desire’ from such an offering.

Praise, honor, glory: And what do such offerings serve? They serve to boost EGO, does the creator then have t:hat largest ego? It would seem so, especially if It requires the masses to be included in the ‘public’ offering of such praise, honor and glory.

Perhaps an offering is to show respect and love. What love can be given that is worthy of a creator, when the giver can not even respect and love the things and people of the world that they were given? But again there is the question of, what is the purpose of showing respect and love? It makes a person feel ‘good’, so it stand to reason that we were created to make a lonely creator feel better about Itself. Is that not also ego? Or is that just insecurity that requires stroking?

Perhaps the offering is in the form of apology, for having nothing better to offer? Then again, what good is apology, when we do not have the means to mend the errors of our ways? For the error is an occurrence directly and inherently intertwined with the imperfections with which we were created. Hence free will, choice are the ambiguities that feed the imperfection of our nature, any offering, one might make to a creator, would then be nothing less than an ego booster.

Free will and choice to follow that will, can no longer be considered ‘free’ or even our own choice, if there is any possibility that the outcome of our decisions can be changed, manipulated or guided away from a natural course of cause and effect. Therefore, choosing to ASK for such intervention, of the creator in prayer, not only offends what the nature of prayer was meant to be, (an offering), but it also means that we are only subject to ‘conditional’ and limited freedom of choice. Hence free will and choice are at best, an illusion, or perhaps they are the rules of a creator for a massive universal game of LIFE to occupy the mind of a lonely and egotistical creator.

You see how twisted the ‘idea’ of public prayer can become. Voil when he associated public prayer with mass marketing efforts – for in that would be the corruption of man. To continue in other veins, as I have done, means the corruption of a creator.

There is no purpose or need in prayer to ASK for anything, not if one believes that we are entirely free to make choices and to suffer the consequences of the laws of nature and our own actions. Not even an over all blessing request can have validity if free will is to be believed. Therefore, there can be only one reason and purpose to prayer – to feed the ego of a creator.

Either the creator is corrupt or those who believe in a creator have corrupted Its purpose. Language MUST have a purpose or a creator would have left that our of the creation process. Communication with a creator does not have to be ‘verbal’ unless that creator has limited capabilities. Therefore language can only be seen as a means to communicate with our own kind. The greatest corruption of all languages, ever conceived by human can be found in the language of the Bible. For if a simple word, such as prayer (an offering) can be turned into the philosophical treatise ( above) than there is surely communication lacking in the pages of that Bible. If free will can be changed by the whim of a person, than ‘free will’ has no definitive meaning and renders communication useless. If choice means we can choose between two or more possibilities, then we must have some logical frame of reference on which to base that choice. The language of some Biblical believers would have us believe that people consciously make a choice between loyalty to a creator and ----- well the only choice given is hell. This is not a logical communication for there is nowhere in the Bible that gives one any CLEAR frame of reference on which to make this choice. Therefore it is the ‘interpretation’ of the faithful that determine which ‘choice’ is good and which is bad. So once again the Bible was inadequate as a communicative tool.

IF – on the other hand, a Creator wanted to comfort Its creation by giving it prayer as a means of condolence, a way to connect with the ‘spirit’ that is It’s only ‘form’, than prayer is no more than an individual seeking comfort that CAN NOT be found in the bosom of humanity. In this frame of reference – PRAYER IS PERSONAL and Public prayer serves only the ego of those who “market” a religion for sale.

WOW!!!! you really don't get it, do you?



It's fine that you see from your view.

Quite honestly, Redy, I cannot understand the wisdom of posting a point of view that is constructed to alienate the reader from sympathizing with you, that does not already agree with you.

Either you intended to irritate a tender spot or encourage inflaming the gulf that exists in the minds of many that would tacitly approve of your sentiments.

Seems unthoughtful to me.

And not helping matters.


You are capable of better.


Less is more.

My intent was to show how simple words, when used out of context or out of definition can change an entire concept. One word, used incorrectly "prayer" can make the difference between errancy and in-errancy.

A word that is infallibly defined, can mean nothing more or less than what it was conceptualized to be. Changing the definition and meaning of words, to suit a purpose, requires that the word be re-defined, so that others hearing it understand the communication as well as how it will be forever used contextually. Otherwise you demand that people draw conclusions - and I was attempting to simulate the thought of logic along that vein.

To change the definition, the meaning of a word withing an already pre-determined infallable writing, is not possible without making the entire writing subject to the logical conclusion that it is fully in error.

Prayer is one such word - to re-define it is to make the text to which it belongs a human concept and full of errors.

i think a little respect for other peoples views would go a long way on this forum..

Thank you , Redy.

Redefining it does constitute a conundrum.

The flip is in the abuse of further adherence to another societal norm that already is inclusive of an accepted norm.

The accepted norm is that prayer works and is not a mere vent for egotisical folly.

Assuming that man , nevertheless , displayed the moral and ethical character enmass required for justice to prevail at all without recalcitrance and reprobation then I could agree with your assessment.

However, that is not the case and not to be the case as long as man and God are inexorably linked in being.

A prime example of a secular and godless societal construct as envisioned in communist and , to some degree, socialist philosophy is its failure to account for the exercise of personal endeavor and associated personal reward.

To envision a systemic institutional prerequisite upon any culture that would sequester open and transparent embraces of man and a divine influence over mankind would require the renunciation of divinity(ies).


Perhaps divinity is incumbent upon man and not a disassociative delusion.

I'm convinced that man is inexorably dependent upon divine influence and bereft of the capacity to declare his independence
of such an influence as necessarily incumbent upon his existence.

so to deny god is to deny yourself?i dunno about that.Some people find comfort in other religions/philosophies and still have inner peace ,know who they are and love their fellow man.Maybe that is god's intention for them.

I was lost at the middle of page one already.
As far as I understand it, a relationship with God (and it doesn't matter which god it is) is a very private thing.
You can share what ever you want of it, but it is still very private to me. I talk to god when ever I feel like it, I don't need a church, I don't need a bible, and, most important of all, I don't need a religion for that, and I don't need set times.
Because my heart talks to Him whenever it feels like it.
And I surely don't need people to tell me how to do it, and which is the right way to do it, because it's PRIVATE.

I have a relationship not a religion....and redy as much as I respect you.....and I do....you really don't have a clue.

You are in our prayers Redykeulous

Amen

You make it sound like a minor dilemma – when it’s a dilemma that could determine the fallible nature of the Bible. A conundrum to those who do not hold so strictly to the word, a disaster for fundamentalists.



A norm is only accepted as the norm as long as it remains uncontended. In a country where diversity is becoming the ‘norm’, it is likely that old norms must give way to the new.

Those who believe that prayer works, are not being asked to stop praying. They are being asked to be considerate of others and to control themselves in a manner befitting a social setting, of many diverse cultures. Such manners we teach to children and we expect them to learn restraint.



If I were a Christian I might be highly offended at this comment. What you have said supports the idea that Christians maintain their moral code out of the fear of being condemned to eternal hell: reprobation. Furthermore, you wield assumptive reasoning like it is a single edged sword. I tell you there is a double edge when ‘assumptions’ are made. You assume that recalcitrance does not occur in a religious environment. I suggest you watch the other side of that sword.



It’s not the case because it’s YOUR ASSUMPTION! Your days of receiving the “benefit of doubt” in my mind are over!




If this information is a direct inspiration from your Holy Spirit, I suggest you are being misled.

First of all – you are associating corrupted tyrannical government powers with the lack of a belief in God. A lack of such belief does not make one “a prime example” of a corrupted tyrannical power.
You continue to further insult the intelligence of those who read you by insinuating that American people are attempting to make Christians “renounce” their beliefs for the sake of a creating a “secular and godless society”.

How you do appear in the light of day, Wouldee, such rhetoric will only serve to be your undoing.




The incumbent of you’re divinity has It’s place in heaven – remember free will? If man is “bereft of the capacity to declare his independence” than you have further stated more relevant argument supporting the in-errancy of the Bible.

Choose a side Wouldee, some see the offence you hand out, others are blinded by their faith and can not see that the offender swings a double edged sword without deference to either side.

Not true Redy at all......He can see a point without detering his beleifs...which I have seen over and over. I wonder also Redy.....Why if you believe as you do....do you go into specific God threads......isn't it a waste of your time.

Redy,

You are quite off.

So far off, that you are blinded by your own rhetoric.

Every attempt to bash my words is completely independent of my words.

I am careful not to be personal and opinionated in my writings outside of humor.

If I want you to vieww my words in one color, I will give you the color.

What you want is clear.

You want to deny my comment and redirect my attention onto defending your sensitivities.

It will not happen.

You will attempt to understand my words or continue to believe as you do.

Pity, actually.

I had a better hope of you.

Peace, out.

Absolutely, what I want is “clear”. Communication, in the written form, must adhere to some level of consistency. While writing styles are prone to be different, the definitions of words, no matter how uncommon they are, must prove to support the writing.

On several occasions you have made comments to me, similar to that of a mental abuser. You have considered my writing “unthoughtfull”, “unworthy of me” “you expected better of me”, just to quote a few.

I have accepted that my words were not made clear and I have taken the responsibility of attempting to correct the situation. If you look at the posts above, you will see one such example – the one that has led to this exchange.

I have taken apart your reply and shown you how it was perceived by me. They are your words Wouldee, take responsibility for them and make them clear. I will not continue to be thought of as your student, as a child you can ‘guilt’ into change.



With the kind of comments that you have made, in response to some of my posts, it seems clear that it is not my sensitivities that are in need of defense. The insincerity of such words does not escape me.



Read carefully this last quote of yours. What you don’t say is ‘very’ often what I see.

I see no lack of opinion in this quote – what I see is something more like this:
>>You will attempt to understand my words (and agree with them) or continue to believe as your do. Pity actually, I had a better hope of you (that you could see things MY way).

The light you attempt to shine on yourself as the omnipatient teacher, at my expense will not be tolerated. YOU sir, will treat me with respect as I have attempted to treat you. If your words are unclear, if you have failed as a teacher or even simply at getting a particular point across, do not blame the intellect of the reader, when it is the responsibility of the writer to be clear.

wrong again.


omnitransliterated perhaps.

What's personal or insolent about societal norms and observations objectively centered for a window into the world we live in?

Have I become a thorn in your side or has societyy's reality been deposited upon my charge?

Were I to make the rules, there would be none.

Is help pontifical?

And are you uniquely qualified to adjudicate intent?

Where am I?

In a delusional vacuum?

You act as though I have cornered your senses and deprived you of any capacity to see beyond your construct of my world view.

Did I ask you a question in my post that has brought you to this quandry?

Do you know what you are reading in my post?


You still have no clue!!!!!!

You tell me who I am and what I know as if I do not.

You suggest the course of my action.

Did I request that of you?

You enjoy the context you profane upon my words and suggest my pontificance upon your person in disgraceful rudeness and think that I am bound to console your ineptness with expressions of consolation and remorse?

Of course I pity you.

Do you proclaim gurdianship of my observations of the world we both live in as though my perspective is diatribe to be dissected out of school infringing on your needs?










It is what it is.

You see it around you or you do not.

It is not personal.

Open your eyes to see what happening around you in the cruel, harsh, unpredictably iniquitous world of man within our culture.

Step back and see what is thrust upon us all.




Another thing.

When I bring up a conundrum and proceed to call it a flip, why do you suppose that the flip is not the selfsame conundrum?

And again, When I seek to agree with you and profer an assumtion of the 'enmass' capability of man, does it become my pontification of your constructs that is being rejected?




Where do you draw the line between the address of two subsequent posts?

In your judgement, or in the address?

Does Wouldee World revolve around Redy World or does there exist any opportunity for others to express an observation in open format of any inclined point of view that may coincide with mine, oppose mine, or inspire a latent observation in meritorious context?

Clarity?

Offence?

You add insult to injury when you deconstruct contextual verbage in selective and emotional disarray and attribut the abuse to te poster ; in this case dear Wouldee.

Do i cry Foul?

No.

I abandon your insult.

My abandonment then becomes an insult?

Who can answer your deconstruction and reconstruction and not interfere with your machinations?

That's not just ridiculous, it's ludicrous!!!!!


We have a breach of faith and good will between us.

One your words will not soothe.

But I know your heart is not disposed to destroy people.


This man is unfamiliar to you. Rare. Unique. Marginal.

Perhaps if you used words better suited to the context of your 'point' there would be less opportunity for others to accuse you of "omnitransliteration". Although, I believe that word was used in error, by you. To transliterate is to exchange letters from another language. Omni is related to all places or all things - how you put the two together and when you choose to do so, does not fit the concept of clear and concise communication.




Here you seem to be saying something profound, with the intellect of one high above those around you. But there is no frame of reference that can put the words you have chosen to use into any logical context.

profane -
1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : desecrate
2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

pontificance -I could not find the word, so I used pontificate instead.
1. speak pompously: to speak about something in a knowing and self-important way, especially when not qualified to do so

2. serve as bishop: to officiate as a bishop, especially in celebrating Mass

I'm sure your are correct in thinking that my ignorance prevents me from understanding the high level of intellect with which you converse - please enlighten my ignorance by rephrasing your quote, specifically using words from one of the definitions, generally accepted, for the words you have used, that are not clear to me.



let me repeat:






Again, I have difficulty assimilating, logically,what you are trying to say. What guardianship have I declared over your observations. "as though my perspective is a ditribe (a harsh and bitter attack) to be dissected out of school infringing on your needs?"

Are you suggesting that I'm opposed to learning new vocabulary words? I am not. I know my ignorance and I have MANY A TIME had to look up the words you use. And on many occasions I have not been able to reconcile your use of those words with the context of your rhetoric.

I have not called you on this, and I would not have,if your mighty ego had not continued to be insistant on its supererioty over me.

There is nothing wrong with my ability to look up words that I don't understand, and there is nothing wrong with my ability to use those words to get MY point accross. So perhaps it is inferiority that disarms me and leaves me unable to understand.

So from the perspective of one who seems to demonstrate a intellectual vocabulary miles above my own, I have asked you to be take responsibility to clarify the errors in my perceptions.

But you respond with this:



Of course you do, when even condescendence becomes too lowly an action, what is there left but pity!

I do not pity those whose intelligence is unequal to my own, I accept that intelligence does not equate to character, nor does it interfere with happiness or my ability to communicate with those who are willing.

If pity is burdensome to you or distresses you in any way, please, don't give me another thought, for those who live in ignorance are neither sad nor regretful of what they don't know.
It does not make me any less able to be a useful and productive memeber of society.

I am done - let peace reign once more.

All I can do is pray.

OK simple English of a complex thought.

Without writing a book.

sharing views on public prayer makes one aware of nothing more than what is.

changes in human behavior are very slow

apt not to change when pushed.

Pushing any emotional or spiritual conduct off the edge will be met with extreme resistance.

Be it religious or secular , societies do not and will not turn on a dime.

Complaints and protests are met with sharp resistence.

Replace prayer with silent meditation and the non religious will persecute the religious.

Those on top do as they wish.

Those on the bottom do what they can.

Flip it and the same is true.

Thus, no progress, no advance, no change. Only new labels.

That is a foolish waste of time, effort and energy on any society.

Being more narrow in scope to make a point real is like this :
Excesses of Christianity are marginally (at best) responsible for society's ills. The ill is in the view of the minority that think there is no God and that they would rather not hear or know about it. Period. No less, no more.

The real ill is laziness, and ignorance.

The greatest threat is avarice and greed.

The worst symptom of our society is the assumption that all are entitled to equal and equitable treatment by all.

Won't happen. Nope , nada and zippo, baby!!!!!

All have the opportunity. None is bankrupt in that.

Few have means. Most just survive. Many suffer.

Evil , corrupt , mean , whatever you want to call it, people are and do what they wish secretly, covertly , slyly , sneakily,
with trickery , deceit , confusion , etc. as any and all available and clandestine means to an end can muster .

Blame religion if you want, it only gets worse.

Blame Christians all the more and all you get is more of the same.


Pretend it to be any way you want and you get what you believe whether that is a correct basis for that belief or not.

Christianity doesn't kill and warmonger and rape, pillage and destroy.

Men that wrap their twisted ideas around a convenient scapegoat do.

Men that wrap their selfish ambitions around socialist principles do that same garbage and worse because they are not contrained by a sound moral compass.

This world of man is twisted, ill , dying , corrupt , hungry , thirsty , polluted, controlled , enslaved in inumerable ways with deceptive resourcefulness and conceit.

Get a clue.

Christians are not the problem.

Christians keep evil away from your door and make you feel safe.

The thanks for that is a slap on the face.

WE TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, way too often.

We can turn the other cheek, but you must not chase us down to slap us more often just because it is so easy to do.

We do return fire.

Trap us and turning the other cheek will get us killed or outlawed.

That is not going to happen in a moral and ethically sound society.

It will happen in a corrupt and ignorant and foolish and desperate and wanton society.

Continue to bite the head off christians and remember the taste of the blood in your mouth when you bite one anothers heads off because you are too blind to see the real problem which has escaped your better judgement.

The real problem?

Not God or God's fans but the ungodly and foolish that usurp the concept of god and wear the crown themselves.


Clearer I cannot be.

Look around you.

I didn't invent this comedy.

See what is and know that it is.

Play silly mind games at home with friends, I don't care. That's the way it is.

The sad part is that the vocabulary of most is dismally insufficient to grasp simple things quickly and succinctly at all. Let alone with the effortlessness that should accompany sound communication.


Convenient it is to ignore a thought coveyed as incomprehensible if eloquent.

Just say, I don't get it.

No need to admit anything.

Just camouflage the credibility of the conveyance as elitist mumbo jumbo and lost is lost is lost.


You think about that, and not about posing me as your whipping boy.




That Christians don't express themselves with candor and frankness speaks of their compassion and sympathy, not their incredibly maligned delusions.

If only we all knew of the view that sound moral ethical and wholesome individuals have of so many of these special interest platforms seeking to be respected and admired and applauded and embraceed for their wanton and reckless desires.

Good manners preclude assaulting with embarrassment.






Prayer works, therefore , it is.