Brotha's question is very relavant on a board as diverse as ours and should not go unasked or unexplored. So if he does not mind I have taken it upon myself to ask all of you my family:

Why do we worry who to pray to if there is only one God for all men in all our various languages?

Are the different names we have for God merely a difference in language or are we all worshipping a different god?

When someone asked for prayer should you pray to God as you understand him/her or as they understand him/her?

Should you ask someone to pray for you if you're not sure who and how they pray?

as has been pointed out, the question "could be" a "good" one. it very definitely shouldn't have been tossed in to that post. regardless of what one might feel about another's belief structure, as long as one is not willing to show that other enough respect to honor their request, one will continue to be "part of the problem". "pertinent question", ... sure, ok; someplace else! when and as it came up; most impertinent!

Why do we worry who to pray to if there is only one God for all men in all our various languages?something to keep this distracting argument going. "mine is bigger than your's!" "my daddy can whip your daddy" kind of stuff. continued division of those that are out of the "control" loop.

Are the different names we have for God merely a difference in language or are we all worshipping a different god?prolly more different perceptions of a same entity based on where we are/were when we "discovered" the concept.

When someone asked for prayer should you pray to God as you understand him/her or as they understand him/her?not real sure if one could do that other than as one understands and is comfortable with?

Should you ask someone to pray for you if you're not sure who and how they pray?"the more the merrier". unless one suspects that someone over there is talking to shiva, ku, lucifer, legba or loki. <shrug> i would imagine that what's more important is the energy/power of the prayer coming from the conviction within those being asked. regardless of "who" the prayer is tossed up to, the heartfelt, hopefully, "true" intent is what is hoped to "tickle the ivories" of the "higher power".

as has been pointed out, the question "could be" a "good" one. it very definitely shouldn't have been tossed in to that post. regardless of what one might feel about another's belief structure, as long as one is not willing to show that other enough respect to honor their request, one will continue to be "part of the problem". "pertinent question", ... sure, ok; someplace else! when and as it came up; most impertinent!

No moreso than continuing to beat that horse in this thread.

something to keep this distracting argument going. "mine is bigger than your's!" "my daddy can whip your daddy" kind of stuff. continued division of those that are out of the "control" loop.

I dont' see how you got that perspective from RIVER's statement.

prolly more different perceptions of a same entity based on where we are/were when we "discovered" the concept.

I can agree with this. Spiritual development is just as much anthropological as it is ethereal.

not real sure if one could do that other than as one understands and is comfortable with?

That's the point though; why should a person's comfort zone dictate how they respond to something that by nature is the ultimate Unknown?

"the more the merrier". unless one suspects that someone over there is talking to shiva, ku, lucifer, legba or loki.


What's wrong with these entities? Do you have an intimate knowledge about them? A person could say the same thing about "Jesus".

<shrug> i would imagine that what's more important is the energy/power of the prayer coming from the conviction within those being asked.

If that is the case, then what does it matter if I pray to LOKI, if I do so with conviction to help the person being prayed for?

regardless of "who" the prayer is tossed up to, the heartfelt, hopefully, "true" intent is what is hoped to "tickle the ivories" of the "higher power".

This sounds rather contradictory, based on your immediately preceding statement.

Would you have a problem with me praying to Lucifer on your behalf, as long as my prayer was sincere?

the Christians done scared every body.
i remember them saying if i slipped up and prayed to the wrong God, I'd get punished.


if you don't do right God's gonna gitcha!

the Christians done scared every body.
i remember them saying if i slipped up and prayed to the wrong God, I'd get punished.


if you don't do right God's gonna gitcha!
Well aren't they praying to the wrong god when they pray to Jesus since that is not his real name?

as has been pointed out, the question "could be" a "good" one. it very definitely shouldn't have been tossed in to that post. regardless of what one might feel about another's belief structure, as long as one is not willing to show that other enough respect to honor their request, one will continue to be "part of the problem". "pertinent question", ... sure, ok; someplace else! when and as it came up; most impertinent!



I have no idea what the belief structure is for the person who requested prayer, hence, I asked the question. There is no disrespect there. The question absolutely should be put in that post since that is where prayer was requested.

Peace

I have no idea what the belief structure is for the person who requested prayer, hence, I asked the question. There is no disrespect there. The question absolutely should be put in that post since that is where prayer was requested.

Peaceoh! well, let's try it from the Cultural direction:

the question, at that place and time, which is to say, in the middle of the service, is a social slap in the faith to the prayer requestor and all who would immediately pro-offer their heartfelt prayers. it almost, well, no, it tarnishes, just enough to see and feel, the "service" we are providing to/for each other.

when someone requests a public prayer, nothing is said about a "denominational" prayer. a pulbic request for prayer is a request for an honest prayer, regardless of who you are praying to; that information is not necessary, and detracts from the strength that is requested in a public prayer. pray, faithfully, please, to whomever you pray to when you pray. on behalf of the party requesting the prayer, ask whoemever you do ask to send some good wishes their way.

the question is moot in these circumstances. that's just the way we do these things. and, pretty much, all "true" religions will respond immediately to this without any thought of that nature at all. ("true" as in consistent with itself, not as in "fact")

No moreso than continuing to beat that horse in this thread.teacher to teacher, sam, if it is necessary to repeat a lesson a few times, is one beating a dead horse?

I dont' see how you got that perspective from RIVER's statement.begging your pardon, but i took this as "question one" of the meat of river's post. this was not a statement, sam; she asked a question. i offered an opinion. it may have come across differently than you "expected" or something. but, begging your pardon, .... er .. no ...


I can agree with this. Spiritual development is just as much anthropological as it is ethereal.i wish i knew what i said, here so that i could be sure of this; it sounds like a fun bit of contemplation!! thanks teach; that's on the back burner. interesting thought!

That's the point though; why should a person's comfort zone dictate how they respond to something that by nature is the ultimate Unknown?if it is usually outside of a person's confort zone to react to the unknown, and by definition it generally is. but given that we humans ponder things like this, it is possible to self train to be within closer tolerances of one's "confort zone". essentially, how they would react is completely unknown if .... wait a minute. oh, man - i don't feel like digging back to what i said that prompted this response ...

it very probably should't dictate squat. but because humans are humans, it will. this feels like a microscope that is much too fine!!

What's wrong with these entities? Do you have an intimate knowledge about them? A person could say the same thing about "Jesus". what? you don't know who they are? and it really looks li ....see below


If that is the case, then what does it matter if I pray to LOKI, if I do so with conviction to help the person being prayed for?

This sounds rather contradictory, based on your immediately preceding statement.

Would you have a problem with me praying to Lucifer on your behalf, as long as my prayer was sincere?
do i have to walk all the way back and show you just how badly to picked apart what i was saying??!! oh, gee thanks!! what's up!! i'm like really being misunderstood around here lately? and then explain each one?

LOKI is the "god of mischief". ku is the god of death. legba is a deadly joker. lucifer is the father ... whatever. why would anyone ask one of these "entities" for their "best" on behalf of someone who (whom?) has asked for a public prayer. asking for mischief? asking for death? asking for a death by mischieviousness? do you really believe that there are people ..... oh, them maggots ... well, aside from them; do you really know humans that would wish someone the worst when they ask for a bit of "moral support". oh, dear, did i use the wrong word? are we gonna examine the strict meaning of this word? should i add, now, a strict definition of the context that i used it in this sense? sorry - this deconstruction into individual letters has just so left me wide open, that you have almost managed to convince me that you are legitimitley ... i don't know ... "third degree" stuff. excuse me?? says who?

:nono:

dang! thangs just seem to be bound and determine to .... no, gotta slow dow ... breathe!!!

I dont' see how you got that perspective from RIVER's statement.
let us examine RIVER's statement and explore my perspective.

Originally Posted by river
Why do we worry who to pray to if there is only one God for all men in all our various languages?
something to keep this distracting argument going. "mine is bigger than your's!" "my daddy can whip your daddy" kind of stuff. continued division of those that are out of the "control" loop.distraction of the plebes who have been distracted by "religion" created by those that want the plebes distracted with anything while they "control" the information and resources around them. an time/energy waster over "my god is more righteous than your god" arguments that have no meaning and no answer. futility. pure filler. nice distraction.

but that would be for the "collective", "mainstream", "we". it doesn't matter at all, now does it? all are facets of the some "Great Omni AllNess", if you'll pardon my flippancy. there is only One. and That One does not care about what It is Called, as long as the Calling is "faithful".

The subject of religion and spirituality will always be an explosive one. I stand in amazement at the ones who manage the courage to keep bringing it up. Religion along with politics in alot of cases are known to be a taboo subject to bring up unless the opinions shared are very similar between the persons involved. Both religion and party affilation(Democrats or Republicans) are something that you are basically born into, people very rarely changed either.

By that being the case you can understand the sensitivity behind all of this, these things have basically been a way for people to define who they are as an individual. I think people often times consider it not only as an attack on themselves but on all the generations that preceded them, even when the interpretation is ever so slight.

Seeing as both of these things are an inheritance.

PEACE AFRICAN!!

teacher to teacher, sam, if it is necessary to repeat a lesson a few times, is one beating a dead horse?

True, but given the nature of the thought processes of some people, as well as the means by which they learn, it's mostyl appropriate to keep all lessons within the same cirriculum. That, after all, was your point to begin with.

Besides, we wouldn't expect an algebra lesson in the middle of an English Comp 101 class, would we?

The admonishment of inappropriate timing for Chucky's post was already delivered, is all I'm saying.

begging your pardon, but i took this as "question one" of the meat of river's post. this was not a statement, sam; she asked a question. i offered an opinion. it may have come across differently than you "expected" or something. but, begging your pardon, .... er .. no ...

True indeed, it was a question that RIVER posed and not a statement. My apologies.

However, my question still stands the same, which you clarified later:

let us examine RIVER's statement and explore my perspective.


Why do we worry who to pray to if there is only one God for all men in all our various languages?


something to keep this distracting argument going. "mine is bigger than your's!" "my daddy can whip your daddy" kind of stuff. continued division of those that are out of the "control" loop.


distraction of the plebes who have been distracted by "religion" created by those that want the plebes distracted with anything while they "control" the information and resources around them. an time/energy waster over "my god is more righteous than your god" arguments that have no meaning and no answer. futility. pure filler. nice distraction.

Please believe me, that I understood this from the very onset. However, what I was saying--rather what I should have said (especially since you expounded upon your statement further), is that I sincerely think that there was more at work from CHUCKY's statements, and his reasonings for making them, rather (or not at all) than a "My God can beat your God's @$$" mentality.

Chucky has even stated as much in his response here.

i wish i knew what i said, here so that i could be sure of this; it sounds like a fun bit of contemplation!! thanks teach; that's on the back burner. interesting thought!

Thanks man. Teachers can learn from teachers too :fyi:

if it is usually outside of a person's confort zone to react to the unknown, and by definition it generally is. but given that we humans ponder things like this, it is possible to self train to be within closer tolerances of one's "confort zone". essentially, how they would react is completely unknown if .... wait a minute. oh, man - i don't feel like digging back to what i said that prompted this response ...

Don't worry you don't have to. You more than clarified your perspective with this response. And to all of which I agree.

it very probably should't dictate squat. but because humans are humans, it will. this feels like a microscope that is much too fine!!

Sometimes this is what's needed. However, bear in mind, on the other end of a microscope, is a TELESCOPE.

what? you don't know who they are? and it really looks li ....see below

Yes, I do know who they are......

do i have to walk all the way back and show you just how badly to picked apart what i was saying??!! oh, gee thanks!! what's up!! i'm like really being misunderstood around here lately? and then explain each one?

Well, that's not exactly what I meant when I posed that question, but just the same:

LOKI is the "god of mischief". ku is the god of death. legba is a deadly joker. why would anyone ask one of these "entities" for their "best" on behalf of someone who (whom?) has asked for a public prayer. asking for mischief? asking for death? asking for a death by mischieviousness? do you really believe that there are people ..... oh, them maggots ... well, aside from them; do you really know humans that would wish someone the worst when they ask for a bit of "moral support". oh, dear, did i use the wrong word? are we gonna examine the strict meaning of this word? should i add, now, a strict definition of the context that i used it in this sense? sorry - this deconstruction into individual letters has just so left me wide open, that you have almost managed to convince me that you are legitimitley ... i don't know ... "third degree" stuff. excuse me?? says who?


OK, this is the reason that I asked the question here:

First, I'm fully aware of the respective functionalities of these deities. I'm also aware that none of these deities, in function exsisted outside of their respective Pantheons.

By nature, one cannot "worship" a Pantheon, in the same manner as one would the Judeo-Christian God, who portends to exsist independent of a pantheon (even though that is not true either, but perception is a B!+c#, ain't it?).

In Kemet, there was a Dynasty of Kings who adopted the name of SET; their intent was to harness the Storm-Bringer's Energies, for the good of the people.

And guess what? That Dynasty was one of the most prosperous ones of Kemetic history.

Does that mean that the Kemetians prospered because of the Devil? That's alot to wrap one's mind around, isn't it?

But it just goes to show that Pantheonic spiritual systems do not work in the exoteric fashion, nor are they even meant to.

However, the point is understood just the same, because a person who is not enlightened to a degree to understand any of what I just said, is not going to appreciate a prayer to "LUCIFER" on their behalf.

Speaking of which, I'm curious as to what you were going to say here:

lucifer is the father ... whatever.

What.....Lies?

We are all beginning to learn that this is an untruth, and there is presently a thread in progress here about this very topic.

And that, fellow teacher, is the point to begin with.

dang! thangs just seem to be bound and determine to .... no, gotta slow dow ... breathe!!!

Yes, Please do brother. It's just a discussion, is all. LOL, but I'm glad that you approach this with sincere passion.

but that would be for the "collective", "mainstream", "we". it doesn't matter at all, now does it? all are facets of the some "Great Omni AllNess", if you'll pardon my flippancy. there is only One. and That One does not care about what It is Called, as long as the Calling is "faithful".

True indeed. In the end, this is truly all that matters.

That is why also, the very reason I chose not to interfere with that thread, though I've been following it from it's inception.

All things must be taken into consideration, before committing to an action.

PEACE