Below is an image of a small stone circle in Wales, there were probably places like this throughout Britain. Take a look at it, see the alter stone in the centre. Now ask yourself; if these people were merely worshipping nature, or if they were trying to affect it!
thousands of years later in the 6thC AD, the picts [note; pict; picture, as like the ancient Britons were refered to by the Romans as; the painted people] put up stones with mystical symbols upon them e.g. the water-horse [origins of loch-ness monster] which refers to a darkness from beneath. Along side of that are oghamic inscriptions pertaining to names of places and people, and in short they were protection spells for the people who lived there, and against invaders.
If a friend buys you a coffee you are expected to buy them one back, you yourself expects to. If something is given [e.g. in nature or ones story/poetry] then the natural instinct is to give back for services received. Yet in paganism – if i may, we are not simply talking about finding a balance with nature, we are indeed trying to make things happen, we then give objects and things we consider to have high worth so as to affect outcomes. Sometimes even kings were sacrificed to connect a tribe to their lands.
Now we come to the successor religion; Christianity, from what I can tell it appears that ‘the gift’ whatever that may be, is not made in lue of receipt. So why do Christians worship? Sing praise? Pray?
It seems to me that perhaps we are all trying to make affect in the world, perhaps when there is no need.
On the other hand if you do nothing then you get nothing?
Perhaps religion originated as a result of hunter-gatherer societies learning the importance of reciprocal altruism and then projected it on the world where they expected spirits [disembodied minds ]which they believed animated nature to act reciprocally as if they were human.
Yea, it’s a bit like how artistic animators tend to make animal-like creatures act human-like rather than as animals do.
Is that to say that the human level is non-representative in nature?
On another level should we ask if worship itself has been that cause of most of the problems in religion? I mean, one wouldn’t cause wars and sacrifice if not for such an emotional connection to divinity. Consider suicide bombers etc.
Why do we ‘worship’ the gift, and what do we achieve if we do nothing?
Perhaps because it’s within us, as songs are in birds.
And if not worship, sing, praise, pray, then dancing around a fire shaking an eagle feather and invoking the spirits, demons, ghosts of the dead, to bring about good to the village.
We do it like birds sing …
For some reason it’s in us. How it got there is anybody’s guess, and like asking how the songs got into the birds. And why.
Consider Elia, who had to be told that power and might as humans perceive them are not the things of God. I think that it is telling that the Buddha didn’t refute gods, he just said that they are as powerless as anyone, but that the power of mind creates our reality. Therefore, it is with the mindfulness that we can perceive the nature of things and adjust to things as they are.
Giving, to me, is just an expression of this equanimity towards life. Emotions only underline our ease or unease, but they don’t really help us cope with situations on a regular basis. Giving shows that we recognise our interdependence and our affinity with all sentient beings, and are making a step towards others in an attempt to solve mutual problems.
To the all-powerful there would be no need to acquire power or to show might, hence there would only be giving in no need of return.
That is, if there is an omnipotent god ~ i see divinity as more passive, and i think pagans felt they had to do something/give in order to receive. Same as the world, if you want change you have to go out there and do it.
The difference now is that we can find a way to affect things, that bronze age people couldn’t. Equally if we do things without any religion the world carries on turning. Thus we need to ask if we actually need to give. Having said that, i think there is much merit in giving without the need to receive, but also there is a lack of merit in taking without any intention to give.
indeed, but surely gods at least have the same power of mind? + and external perspective. …and perhaps the utility of mind to work at the more collective level, as a medium at least. people also manifest them to act for them in such ways, hence they are an addition to our power and utility of mind. not to metion being tutors.
I agree with the other ‘giving’ sentiment you mentioned.
Firstly, Christian theological doctrines are a bit scattered on the matter, but typically the idea for these activities are a few things:
For worship and, more focused on in modern Protestant Christianity, prayer; the idea isn’t exclusively about getting.
Instead it’s about righting oneself with the god.
However, that is not always the doctrinal stance.
The other common take is that a high number of people praying, or a righteous individual praying, earns the god’s ear (for lack of a better word) “better”.
More accurately, the concept is that the righteous are the ones that will pray for just prayers, where other prayers are assumed to not be so - and sometimes it is held that a grand number of people praying accomplishes some form of similar effect.
This is more of a Pentecostal/Evangelical take, and not even all of them.
For singing, singing in most Protestant Christian philosophies is a sort of (and I’m not using their terms for this) channeling mechanism that imbues the adherents with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Again, however, rather than “getting”, it’s more perceived as “tapping into” what is always there.
So the singing, again, rights the individual into being “in-tune” (so to speak) with the purity of the Holy Spirit.
Again, these are not absolutes and individuals in Protestantism often hold a variety of ideas on these matters.
This is a very generalized and broadly painting view that I’m offering.
But yes, the Christian motives are rather different than other religious philosophies.
The Christian motives are generally about fixing the individual to be in line with their god’s desires rather than attempting to get their god to be in line with their desires (hold the jokes, as there are plenty).
I think that religious, especially theistic worship has been coloured by the (intentional) analogy of the king’s court and paying vows of allegiance – it seems to me clear that the human “basiliae” has been adopted in religious language a very long time ago and upheld by monarchs through the ages, albeit claiming that the influence is the other way around.
This a special habit of evangelical Christians and I get the opinion it mimics the pious through the ages, most graphically the Pharisees, who tried to force their god’s hand. The statements from Jesus regarding prayer seem to ridicule this behavior, “don’t blabber”, “don’t stand on street corners”, “don’t you know god knows”, “the basiliae ouranos is in you” or “in your midst”.
It also questions what Prayer is, hence my take on the “chamber experience” (Mt.6:6) which seems to me to be standing naked before God in the way that Adam could no longer do in contemplation or even meditation. Community prayer can have a unifying aspect, if those examples of self-manifestation could only hold back, but profile is very important, as even Paul had to accept.
I think that singing is just a more melodious chant, which is also practiced by Buddhists as a unifying and powerful expression of good will. But I agree with you that it seems to be more a “tapping into”.
