Author Topic: Why do people worship things that dont exist? (Read 1691 times)

Daegus · « **on:** October 16, 2012, 10:07:43 PM »

Am I the only person that does not believe in the existence of talent?

jen51 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:39:28 PM »

Hmmm. Not sure what you mean by this, Daegus. Do you mean to say that people aren't born with distinct natural inclinations? That's what I think of talent as.

I believe in talent. You don't have to call them talents, I suppose. You could call them gifts, graces, etc.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:42:56 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

Am I the only person that does not believe in the existence of talent?

There are talents Daegus.

People are born with perfect pitch, ability to visualize and recall, etc.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:47:41 PM »

Maybe he means that these "talent" and the quest for money, fame and power have replaced God.

I'm sure someone can explain better.

Daegus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:22:43 PM »

I don't believe in "talent" as it's typically understood, because it's supposed to be some sort of an innate ability you're born with. When people usually say that word, they're speaking in reference to being able to do things like sing and dance and what have you.

No one comes out of the womb being able to do anything great short of God's infinite power and specific involvement. People who sing well are not born singers. They may have an aptitude towards it and sound good from the very start, but that does not mean they are good. By using the word "talent", people often neglect the fact that much hard work goes into becoming a skilled individual.

Many of the liars in Hollywood would love to convince everyone that they were born "talented". The truth of the matter is that they're not really important or special (anymore so than anyone else) like they would like to make themselves believe. Not even Mozart was born a perfect composer. His father before him was a genius who corrected him and guided him. Usain Bolt was not born a sprinter. Adele was not born a singer. Gordon Ramsay was not born a cook and so on and so forth.

Perhaps there are "talents", but I don't believe there are any you were born with. I don't believe anyone is born with perfect anything, save Our Lord and His Blessed Mother. Even if you were born with "talent", it wouldn't really matter if you weren't willing to work hard to perfect it.

There is an old Zimbabwean proverb that is as follows: "If you can talk you can sing; if you can walk you can dance", or something to that effect.

Talent is something anyone is capable of. I don't believe in Hollywood's definition of talent. All I'm saying is that I believe in hard work and dedication--- not "talent". Talent seems like a poor excuse for those not wanting to work hard for what they want (even though what they want may be Satanic, mind you)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:25:27 PM »

Quote

Even if you were born with "talent", it wouldn't really matter if you weren't willing to work hard to perfect it.

This is certainly true Daegus, but it rather undercuts the argument you're trying make. Genetics are important. Be thankful you are blessed with native intelligence.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #6 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:05:58 AM »

Some people, no matter how hard they practice, will never play Major League Baseball. So, there must be talent.

Some people, no matter how many hours they dedicate to practice, will never be a member of the Cleveland Symphany Orchestra. So, there must be talent.

Perhaps we should have degrees of talent the way the Holidays are ranked, i.e, double first class, double second class, etc., that way we could refrain from thinking like a calvinist or maybe I mean to use the term "grim autodidactic."

:surprised:

MyrnaM · « **Reply #7 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:07:10 AM »

Believing in talent is not the same as worship talent in my opinion. I also think that people can develop talents.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #8 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:07:27 AM »

Daegus raised a very good point.

First, he's wrong about talent not existing unless he means to say that "talent separate from God" vs. "talent as a gift from God" - he didn't note this in his post.

However, he is correct in saying we should not worship talent.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #9 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:12:38 AM »

I agree we should not worship anything except God.

Daegus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:22:44 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Daegus raised a very good point.

First, he's wrong about talent not existing unless he means to say that "talent separate from God" vs. "talent as a gift from God" - he didn't note this in his post.

However, he is correct in saying we should not worship talent.

Quote from: Daegus

I don't believe in "talent" as it's typically understood, because it's supposed to be some sort of an innate ability you're born with. When people usually say that word, they're speaking in reference to being able to do things like sing and dance and what have you.

No one comes out of the womb being able to do anything great short of God's infinite power and specific involvement. People who sing well are not born singers. They may have an aptitude towards it and sound good from the very start, but that does not mean they are good. By using the word "talent", people often neglect the fact that much hard work goes into becoming a skilled individual.

Many of the liars in Hollywood would love to convince everyone that they were born "talented". The truth of the matter is that they're not really important or special (anymore so than anyone else) like they would like to make themselves believe. Not even Mozart was born a perfect composer. His father before him was a genius who corrected him and guided him. Usain Bolt was not born a sprinter. Adele was not born a singer. Gordon Ramsay was not born a cook and so on and so forth.

Perhaps there are "talents", but I don't believe there are any you were born with. I don't believe anyone is born with perfect anything, save Our Lord and His Blessed Mother. Even if you were born with "talent", it wouldn't really matter if you weren't willing to work hard to perfect it.

There is an old Zimbabwean proverb that is as follows: "If you can talk you can sing; if you can walk you can dance", or something to that effect.

Talent is something anyone is capable of. I don't believe in Hollywood's definition of talent. All I'm saying is that I believe in hard work and dedication--- not "talent". Talent seems like a poor excuse for those not wanting to work hard for what they want (even though what they want may be Satanic, mind you)

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:29:38 PM »

:smile:

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:44:49 PM »

Furthermore, I would like to inform everyone that I will no longer identify myself with the term 'Sede vacante'. My opinion on the matter (pertaining to Benedict XVI and his predecessors) shall be as follows: Sedes non opus est determinare.

Can you tell me what "Sedes non opus est determinar" means?

Thank you.

The following is unrelated but as sedevacantist whenever I am asked what religion I am I unhesitatingly respond "Catholic". That is it.

But I believe the term sede vacante is a very accurate term to describe the current situation. Precise and clear. It is not like I joined a religion where I must always believe the Chair is vaccant no matter what. I'm a sedevacantist now for obvious reasons not because it is my religion.

I do get the point they make though. They prefer to say they are a "wide-awake Catholic" and do not like to be labeled. They also are tired of "isms" like sedevacantism. But IMO that is not a reason to avoid a precise term.

Again that all may not be related to your text above. But I like to blabber.

Daegus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 17, 2012, 03:36:36 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Furthermore, I would like to inform everyone that I will no longer identify myself with the term 'Sede vacante'. My opinion on the matter (pertaining to Benedict XVI and his predecessors) shall be as follows: Sedes non opus est determinare.

Can you tell me what "Sedes non opus est determinar" means?

Thank you.

The following is unrelated but as sedevacantist whenever I am asked what religion I am I unhesitatingly respond "Catholic". That is it.

But I believe the term sede vacante is a very accurate term to describe the current situation. Precise and clear. It is not like I joined a religion where I must always believe the Chair is vaccant no matter what. I'm a sedevacantist now for obvious reasons not because it is my religion.

I do get the point they make though. They prefer to say they are a "wide-awake Catholic" and do not like to be labeled. They also are tired of "isms" like sedevacantism. But IMO that is not a reason to avoid a precise term.

Again that all may not be related to your text above. But I like to blabber.

Why are people noticing my signature only now? I've had it like this for months now.

All it means is that the chair does not need to be determined. Does that mean I believe that Benedict is the pope? Of course not. All it means is that I'm choosing not to label myself as sedevacantist because I have the option of not doing so.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** October 17, 2012, 07:29:56 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

All it means is that the chair does not need to be determined. Does that mean I believe that Benedict is the pope? Of course not. All it means is that I'm choosing not to label myself as sedevacantist because I have the option of not doing so.

You can call yourself what you like, but it won't stop others from passing
their judgments upon you and proclaiming that you are a sedevacantist
even if you claim otherwise, because you deny B16 is the Pope. And you
can't stop them from doing that. I'll be surprised if it does NOT happen.

A lot will depend on how you take it when they do so.