Doesn't have an explanation for what we humans consider beautiful?

[Devils' Advocate]

As for the big miracles that are visually displayed, I agree. They do nothing for the modern man(or woman) I didn't see Moses (PBUH) split the red sea, or Noah (PBUH) build a ship that was filled with animals while the earth flooded, or a child born of a virgin mother. They are great signs of greatness, but at this point to believe them, you must believe that the book(s) that contain the stories are true.

My question is why would one simply accept that the books are true? These books are a thousands of years old. And why choose these theistic books and dismiss others. I assume you don't believe in the Ramayana. It seems to me that it is a purely arbitrary choice made upon which holy books speak the most to you. No evidence is involved in such a choice that I can see.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

My question is why would one simply accept that the books are true? These books are a thousands of years old. And why choose these theistic books and dismiss others. I assume you don't believe in the Ramayana. It seems to me that it is a purely arbitrary choice made upon which holy books speak the most to you. No evidence is involved in such a choice that I can see.

I disagree entirely. Evidence is given in the various scriptures of their source (even those from men trying to explain what was taught to them). In Islamic tradition, If someone took the parts mentioned above out, there is still ample evidence to its accurateness. These stories are confirming those of previous scriptures. Kind of a "Hey Jews, remember that from the Torah, It's real" which only really works for those who accepted previous scriptures. If one comes from say a Hindu background, he/she may have no knowledge of the event, and if the person did enter into Islam based on the other evidences, he would then accept that these things happened, whether they can be proven by science or not.

The last 2 paragraphs are so far from any believer's mentality that I've ever met that I don't know if I can explain it away. But here is my attempt. Your wording is quite difficult. "which holy book speaks the most to you" is like asking who your best friend is, only with something that is entirely more important. You probably have many friends, fewer that you would call your best ones, and pinning down 1 is sometimes a task which ends with an either or scenario. To me choosing which Holy book to follow is actually asking which has most proven facts, and is going to be true to all time. The Rules come next as it must have a logical law set, and finally there is faith in this book being true based on the aforementioned items. I went from Christianity to Islam not because it spoke better to me, but rather it was free of contradictions, free of provable errors, laws are logical for mankind as a whole and individual, and it is nonrestrictive to other religions, concluding even that most religious texts from before Mouhammed (PBUH) have some consistency with the Quran because Allah's messengers were in every nation, and their words found their way into these holybooks, along with many many other things that were not from Allah. Evidence is how you tell these apart. Statements like checking if your wife cheated on you by seeing if she throws up after drinking a bitter disgusting drink or bringing your wife to her fathers doorstep to stone her (with her father participating) if she doesn't bleed on her wedding night seem to deter me from some, while I realize some parts are true.

 

[wil]

To me choosing which Holy book to follow is actually asking which has most proven facts, and is going to be true to all time.... I went from Christianity to Islam not because it spoke better to me, but rather it was free of contradictions, free of provable errors,

In your opinion... Obviously..

You don't make it easy for interfaith discussion when you make such bold statements...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

In your opinion... Obviously..

You don't make it easy for interfaith discussion when you make such bold statements...

you are free to disagree... but that doesn't change the fact that that is the reason for my move. I don't need IF discussion on why I moved forward.

 

[Lux]

All good questions; I will have to answer in parts as time permits.

Part 1.

Yes I am a Deist. As in everything theological, there are different denominations. Some accept a Supreme Being in the mix (though that entity does not involve itself in worldly affairs, it simply started the reality ball rolling). These tend to be the more historical and traditional forms of Deism. More modern versions of Deism believe 'God' is the universe. God is us. I am of the latter. My view is that the entire universe is one giant living entity, and that every little part has a role to play. All the universe is energy, in one form or another. All the universe is vibrations. The relevant point to our discussion is that if there is a Deity, we and everything else in the universe is part of it. There is no self aware entity distinct from all of us.

Yeah, I often hear that on fora. Isn't it called Pantheism or something, something Spinoza first proposed? But isn't your idea also completely what if? I'm fine with it though, if that's what you believe.

But some of the atheists I met online would say,"Yeah then, our entire universe could be a spaghetti noodle in a big bowl of multi-noodles, we just can't see the whole picture because we're such a teeny-tiny particle of the pasta. It makes as much sense!" ... may be it's just me, but it's kinda hard not to take this as mocking.

As a former atheist, I still try to have conversations with atheists now and then. But once they bring up "pink unicorn", it makes me doubt that they are serious about exchanging philosophical ideas, much less examining whether there's a compelling case for God.

 

[Lux]

Part 2.



It is probably more appropriate to say that Divine Beings are no more likely to be real than The Man in the Moon or the Tooth Fairy. What I am talking about here is what I perceive as a modern disconnect between reality and non reality in Theist religions. As an example, two men were talking about religious concepts before a student audience, an atheist and a Muslim. Both are college educated, university professors. Both believe in the scientific method, the theory of evolution, the physics that control the universe, etc.

The atheist suggested to the Muslim that he was a man of learning and education, and surely didn't believe that the miracles in the Koran literally happened, like Mohammed riding a flying horse to heaven. The Muslim countered that he absolutely believed that really happened.

The atheist was shocked by this. How can a modern highly educated and intelligent man believe in fairy tales? This is the disconnect I am talking about. If you had asked the Muslim did he believe in centaurs roamed ancient Greece, or that Thor was the God of Thunder in Norse countries, he would have flatly said no. Those were silly, old fashioned ideas.

But because equally unbelievable myths are in his religion, suddenly they are acceptable as real.

Does that not seem strange? If not how do you reconcile the two.

Ok, so you have a problem with the miracles described in the scriptures. I get that. In one of my old threads I stated:

The burning bush ... Hope you'd understand how difficult for a former disbeliever to comprehend paranormal events like that. But I'm not saying it can't ever happen. I have a friend who swears he saw his late grandfather sitting next to him and smiling at him. He insists it was not a dream. He's not a believer of any religion but now he believes in souls and some kind of afterlife. I've known him since the 7th grade, and have no reason to doubt his sanity or character.​

I wouldn't say I believe all the miracles in the scriptures. But I'm open to the idea partly because what my friend experienced. I also have this weird mental connection with my wife. Like the moment I thought of calling her to inquire when she'll be home, I get this text saying she's on her way home ... Or we say an exact word or phrase at the exact same moment. These kinda things have been happening too often to think it's a total coincidence.

So, I'm thinking, if at all mental non-verbal communication can be possible between two people, then, if the "transcendent mind" existed somewhere, why not? It can be non-verbally reaching out to us in our subconscious minds. But that's me. Of course I'm not asking you to believe that. But I think it's a shame to decide to disbelieve all paranormal phenomena.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

But I think it's a shame to decide to disbelieve all paranormal phenomena.

Actually I don't. Although I believe 'paranormal' is often our phrase for the parts of our reality we don't understand yet. That being said there is a great amount of paranormal that is completely bogus, and people who believe it choose to do so despite good evidence that it isn't.

The difference between the one and the other, for me, is if it breaks the laws of physics of our reality as we understand it. Taking into consideration that we don't understand it all. We understand enough to know that many paranormal events, including miracles, are not possible in our world unless we bring a magical deity into the equation. One that is capable of bending the laws of the universe just because we have decided they can.

Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea and Santa visiting every house in the world in one night - why is it that the former is absolutely believable, while the latter is just silly? What standards are we choosing to come to that conclusion? To my mind, there is none, except that we simply decide one can and the other cannot.

 

[Richard Pickett]

Actually I don't. Although I believe 'paranormal' is often our phrase for the parts of our reality we don't understand yet. That being said there is a great amount of paranormal that is completely bogus, and people who believe it choose to do so despite good evidence that it isn't.

The difference between the one and the other, for me, is if it breaks the laws of physics of our reality as we understand it. Taking into consideration that we don't understand it all. We understand enough to know that many paranormal events, including miracles, are not possible in our world unless we bring a magical deity into the equation. One that is capable of bending the laws of the universe just because we have decided they can.

Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea and Santa visiting every house in the world in one night - why is it that the former is absolutely believable, while the latter is just silly? What standards are we choosing to come to that conclusion? To my mind, there is none, except that we simply decide one can and the other cannot.

On the subject of miracles, Say a person is diagnosed with an inoperable tumor which a second opinion confirms. Being religious said person decides against any form of medical treatment and decides to rely on laying on of hands and prayer. This person returns to the doctor for a check-up two weeks later and it is found that the tumor is gone. In which realm would you place that?

 

[wil]

Normal....our body heals itself....all day every day....only when it is overwhelmed does disease manifest symptoms... 99 percent is handled in house...no doc required. They've wanted to operate on my knee for almost 40 years...twice torn acl, torn meniscus, so far postponed and then cancelled three "required" surgeries.

Paranormal, super natural, miracles, all fall into unexplained natural occurances to me...give us time...we will explain them.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Say a person is diagnosed with an inoperable tumor which a second opinion confirms. Being religious said person decides against any form of medical treatment and decides to rely on laying on of hands and prayer. This person returns to the doctor for a check-up two weeks later and it is found that the tumor is gone. In which realm would you place that?

Fantasyland.

Okay, more seriously. My issue with your statement (which is the foundation with almost all my issues with claims of this sort) is that all the typical end results are ignored and the one cure is held out as something special. Fact is that of the people who would do as you say, 99.99% will end up dying of the cancer. And you will have your one survivor. Why is it a miracle that one person survived when all the others did not? Why are all the others also not worthy of a miracle?

Or is it much more likely that by the pure random chance of percentages that a very, very few will beat the odds.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Fact is that of the people who would do as you say, 99.99% will end up dying of the cancer. And you will have your one survivor. Why is it a miracle that one person survived when all the others did not?

To me, if 99.99% die and only .01% manage to survive that is in and of itself miraculous, but that's just me.

Why are all the others also not worthy of a miracle?

We're all worthy of miracles, but few people recognize it when one happens and even fewer accept the possibility.

Or is it much more likely that by the pure random chance of percentages that a very, very few will beat the odds.

Or is it just that, there are more faithless individuals than there are faithful individuals.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Okay, more seriously. My issue with your statement (which is the foundation with almost all my issues with claims of this sort) is that all the typical end results are ignored and the one cure is held out as something special. Fact is that of the people who would do as you say, 99.99% will end up dying of the cancer. And you will have your one survivor. Why is it a miracle that one person survived when all the others did not? Why are all the others also not worthy of a miracle?

Or is it much more likely that by the pure random chance of percentages that a very, very few will beat the odds.

why does it have to be a bad thing that the 99.99% lost their lives? From an Islamic Perspective, those 99.99% might have been given a much greater reward than the .01% that received a miracle, or was healed inexplicably.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

NJ, Joe, I think that we perceive these ideas so completely differently that a meeting of the minds is not possible. Both of your responses are absurd from my point of view that gods are fiction. Yet I understand that they would make sense to you from your perspective in believing a god does exist.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

NJ, Joe, I think that we perceive these ideas so completely differently that a meeting of the minds is not possible. Both of your responses are absurd from my point of view that gods are fiction. Yet I understand that they would make sense to you from your perspective in believing a god does exist.

Hence why we have interfaith. I, as well as most believers, don't see death as THE END. It is merely an end to this life, which is a mere blink of the overall existence. Different Faiths say it differently, but most have some kind of reward that is eternal for those of the right following.

 

[Lux]

Actually I don't. Although I believe 'paranormal' is often our phrase for the parts of our reality we don't understand yet. That being said there is a great amount of paranormal that is completely bogus, and people who believe it choose to do so despite good evidence that it isn't.

The difference between the one and the other, for me, is if it breaks the laws of physics of our reality as we understand it. Taking into consideration that we don't understand it all. We understand enough to know that many paranormal events, including miracles, are not possible in our world unless we bring a magical deity into the equation. One that is capable of bending the laws of the universe just because we have decided they can.

I agree with your sentiment. I view science as "the compilations of theories our current brains are capable of computing", and I am painfully aware of the limitation of our brains.

I can't remember who said this... (could be Ian Hutchinson, a professor at MIT).
"Some things in the world violate 'known' laws of science. But that is only because our brains are so small, we 'haven't come up with' laws to explain them."

Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea and Santa visiting every house in the world in one night - why is it that the former is absolutely believable, while the latter is just silly? What standards are we choosing to come to that conclusion? To my mind, there is none, except that we simply decide one can and the other cannot.

You seem to be getting so hung up on the miraculous events written by the ancients thousands of years ago. Aren't you taking the same approach as the fundamentalists and literalists (that you yourself do not support) in examining the possibility of the existence of God?

Thomas said he doesn't believe the story of God testing Abram (or Abraham) ordering him to sacrifice his son Isaac, and then later an angel stops Abram from killing Isaac, to be as described. The way Thomas interprets the event makes good sense to me.

The way I read it:

Take Abram's readiness to sacrifice his own son, Isaac.

I read it as Abram drawn away from the 'old gods'. He's at odds so much with the ways of the gods that he ups sticks and sets off for pastures new. Human sacrifice was all part of the 'old ways' and, God bless him, as much as he's looking for something else, he's inculcated in the old ways. Old habits. The whole Abram Isaac thing is not a 'test' by God – I believe God to be more intelligent and insightful than that – nor does God say sacrifice your son to me one minute, then changes His mind the next ...

But supposing Abram grew up in a world where human sacrifice is the done thing. And supposing he's coming to the idea that maybe God doesn't insist on human sacrifice?

I don't read Abram, or Abraham as he was later known, as having a fully-realised understanding of the God of the Jews. The God that we read into the Bible. He's feeling his way forward in the darkness, towards a different sort of covenant between gods and peoples. It took thousands of years for the Jews to work it out. Moses was not a fait accompli, but the result of a long process, a lot of mistakes, a lot of backsliding ... but a sure belief, not in man, but in God, as not some fickle and capricious creature as the gods of the ancient world tended to be.

----------

So I read and I wonder:

What if Abram was about to sacrifice his son as was the custom of his day, and then he had a breakthrough, as we like to say in modern psychological terms. A flash of inspiration. A realisation. A revelation. Is that so improbable? Is it impossible? And when his followers asked him why he didn't go through with it, he said something like, "I had the knife, I was just about to do it, and then it was as if I heard the voice of the Lord, and I looked up ... "

So it end up in the Bible as God talking to Abram. But then, He did, didn't He? Abram held his hand.

Not all Christians believe every miracle in the scriptures literally as described. I'm actually tempted, in one of those days maybe, to list all the miracles and ask Thomas to grade how he conceives the likelihood of each event! Ask him to circle for each miracle: Yes I believe it happened / Dunno maybe / No I don't think so ...

Have you seen Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) directed by Ridley Scott? Many Christians disliked the movie because there was no parting of the Red Sea in the biblical sense.

. . . director Ridley Scott knew that he want to treat the incident as realistically as possible. “You can’t just do a giant parting, with walls of water trembling while people ride between them,” says Scott, who remembers scoffing at biblical epics from his boyhood like 1956’s The Ten Commandments. “I didn’t believe it then, when I was just a kid sitting in the third row. I remember that feeling, and thought that I’d better come up with a more scientific or natural explanation.”

Scott’s solution came from a deep dive into the history of Egypt circa 3000 B.C. After reading that a massive underwater earthquake off the coast of Italy caused a tsunami, he thought about how water recedes as a prelude to such disasters.

“I thought that logically, [the parting] should be a drainage. And that when [the water] returns, it comes back with a vengeance.” Here’s a 5,000-year-old spoiler alert: That’s what happens when Moses (Christian Bale) leads the no-longer-enslaved Hebrews out of Egypt, with leader Ramses (Joel Edgerton) in close pursuit.

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/10/23/ridley-scott-red-sea-exodus​

I liked this movie except I think they should've done a better job in the character building. But I enjoyed Christian Bale as Moses.

Here's the clip of the scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znHGaynEDWw

This clip doesn't show the story leading up to the tsunami scene... Moses led his people out of Egypt, but they came to a dead end (the Red Sea). They don't know how to go anywhere from there whilst Ramses and his army are rapidly approaching in pursuit and recapturing them. Feeling hopeless, Moses began to doubt his ability as a prophesied leader and says to God, "I have failed you". A short while later he sees a meteor falling in the distance, like a sign.

Upon waking up the next morning they find the water had considerably receded, so much so that they can walk across to the other side. But later the water comes back as a massive tsunami just when the Egyptian army catches up to them. This offers a naturalistic and somewhat plausible explanation for what might have happened. But I'd still call it a miracle. Because if this was true, the precise timing of the water coming back to swallow the Egyptian army is "miraculous". You could say that God gave the Hebrews a way out.

Or ...

I once saw a documentary that historically examined the Exodus. Some scholars suggested that the Hebrews did not cross the Red Sea, but a marsh somewhere in the area. While the Hebrews successfully crossed it, the Egyptian army failed to do so due to wearing heavy armor, or something like that.

In either case, somewhere down the line, a grandiose legend was born out of this successful escape from Egypt.

Or ...

If God can create this whole freakishly marvelous universe and everything in it, then parting water would be a piece of cake!

I really don't care either which way. I'm drawn to Christianity because of the concept of "agape", and frankly, nothing else matters to me. Thomas wrote a beautiful piece about agape, I recommend you read it if you haven't.

Re: How do you define love?



If we're talking 'religion, faith and theology', and theology as a means of understanding what it is we believe, then it's worth noting that the Christian scribes 'resurrected' a term and its philosophical ideal of love that had largely fallen out of the contemporary lexicon. It was used only rarely, and in high philosophical circles, but had little currency in general language until the appearance of the New Testament, and that term was agape.


Without going into etymological detail, it might be useful not simply to determine how we think of love, but how the Christian community thought of it. What kind of love were they talking about?


From that viewpoint, what distinguishes agape from terms such as storge which simply means 'affection' and philia, a 'friendship' that went went beyond storge and implied a deeper, familial sentiment, such as the love of a parent for a child, and generally philia implies the ideal of love within a familial relationship. So friends might have an affection storge for each other, but philia runs deeper, and usually implied an ideal of inter-familial love, such as a parent for a child, or between brothers and sisters, relatives, etc. Thus to express one's deep affection for a friend,one might use the term philia rather than storge, to imply 'I love him like a brother' or, by extension, 'I love him like my own flesh and blood'.


The fourth and most common term, eros, always implies a sense of love that overwhelms the will, as if one can't help it, a sense of being 'carried away', so this term was commonly used to describe anything from raw lust at its most carnal, to the kind of ecstatic 'transports' of being caught up and carried away as was pursued in the Mystery Cults of the ancient world.


The term the Christians used, agape, was seen philosophically as superior to both storge and philia, and in a significant way opposite to eros, in that it implied a love that was self-willed, and furthermore that order of love was 'unconditional' or 'selfless' in the sense of the complete gift of self — the 'opening' of the self, or the 'unveiling of the heart' — to the other, regardless of circumstance.


In the discussions above, what is evident is each of us loves conditionally, whereas the Christian message is one of a God who loves unconditionally, and who demands we love each other as He loves us.


Such a love is then utterly different from eros and far transcends storge and philia.


Cut to the chase:

Two things Christ was unable to convince His audience. The first is just how much God loves His creation, and to what lengths He will go to preserve it, and the second is that the world would be a paradise — heaven on earth — if we would only share that love — His love, for He is Love — between each other, without judgement and without condition. Agape, not storge, not philia, not eros.


There is a trinity of terms the describe Christian conversion: Agape, Metanoia, Kenosis.


From the human perspective, the Love of God is 'tough love'. I should qualify that statement by saying in the UK, the idea is similar to the concept of "authoritative" parenting, whereas in the US the same can be considered as a negative, "authoritarian" parenting, which tends to highlight negative outcomes rather than positive ones.


Personally, I think the 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' owes more to a maudlin sentimentality than the actuality. He most certainly was gentle, meek and mild, but this came from strength, not from weakness — the strength to reach out, selflessly, to those who actively oppressed Him.


"Greater love (agape) than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

This does not mean getting killed saving another, nor even the mother who rushes into a burning house to save her child, but simply that one put oneself to one side for the sake of the other, be it God, or one's neighbour — it is an ascetic love, and it is the path the Christian is called to follow.


"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24, 19:21, Mark 8:34, 10:21, Luke 9:23).


Agape then is not easy. It requires self-denial, self-discipline, selfless service. It's greatest virtue is humility. It is kenosis, the 'emptying' of the self from the heart, and thereby the opening of the heart to another — metanoia — and this 'change of heart' is always tied in with repentance. (Cf Mark 1:4, Matthew 4:17, Mark 6:12 and Acts 17:30).


That is the love the Christian is called to live in the world, and with the world the way it is, it is a cross to be borne.


Eros is the gratification, at best the consolation of the senses. Agape is the consolation of the soul.

 

[Richard Pickett]

Fantasyland.

Okay, more seriously. My issue with your statement (which is the foundation with almost all my issues with claims of this sort) is that all the typical end results are ignored and the one cure is held out as something special. Fact is that of the people who would do as you say, 99.99% will end up dying of the cancer. And you will have your one survivor. Why is it a miracle that one person survived when all the others did not? Why are all the others also not worthy of a miracle?

Or is it much more likely that by the pure random chance of percentages that a very, very few will beat the odds.

I wish I could buy into the random chance. Then I don't believe in luck either. Fantasyland would be more appropriate if we were talking in verbiage like Gun control will end violence.... I am sure if you search around a bit, you will find miracles have happened around the world. Those events which occur without any logical explanation.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Thomas wrote a beautiful piece about agape, I recommend you read it if you haven't.

I have read it. And I agree it is a beautiful piece of prose. Thomas is certainly the one with the most scholarly background of the people on this site.

I am sure if you search around a bit, you will find miracles have happened around the world. Those events which occur without any logical explanation.

Events that occur without any logical explanation that we can discern at this time. Many events our ancestors considered miraculous at the time we have come to realize were no such thing; merely science we didn't understand yet. Just because we cannot explain something does not necessarily mean it doesn't have a rational explanation.

 

[Ahanu]

1. Why is it unnatural for humans to consider things beautiful or noble all on their own? I have heard Creationists say such things like 'Can science explain a sunset?' Well, first of all, of course science can explain a sunset in basic physics, but that isn't really what the question is asking. Rather the question is can science explain why we are awed by a beautiful sunset. To which my response would be - why not? Are we not capable of finding beauty and nobility all by ourselves? If you say not, why not?

I'm not saying gods might not be involved. I don't understand why a god must be required. And especially I don't understand why this concept would end up being a defining factor to choose to believe in a god.

*Lux used the phrase 'transcendent mind', and I am inferring he means gods. I.E. thinking entities beyond our physical reality.

I think "beauty" points to an intellect beyond the physical reality we perceive.

The world is intelligible.

This intelligibility is itself beautiful.

And beauty leads us into greater intelligibility. Hence a mathematician like Einstein believed without a doubt that the theory of relativity was true before it was even confirmed because of the equation's beauty. The better an equation describes reality, the more beautiful it becomes.

 

[Ahanu]

Events that occur without any logical explanation that we can discern at this time. Many events our ancestors considered miraculous at the time we have come to realize were no such thing; merely science we didn't understand yet. Just because we cannot explain something does not necessarily mean it doesn't have a rational explanation.

This is true.

It would be interesting to fly a drone with 4k video and speakers blazing Earth, Wind, & Fire's "September" throughout the ancient world. Wonder how that would have been described?