What makes a holy text holy?

[Jan Ardena]

RosaMagika,

The logical approcah does not take the beauty out of a slam-dunk!

No, but it will never be the same as the reality.

The logical approach is NOT THERE TO REPLACE the real thing!

It shouldn't i agree. It is there to help one understand the subject matter from that perspective. But as i said, logic is incomplete in that it is only consistant with our current understanding of certain laws. Logic cannot explain or describe the essence of a piece of music, or emotions.

Thinking that science tries to replace the real thing is a misconception of science.

So what is GM food if not a kind of replacement?

Beethoven's Sixth Symphony is just a line of sounds, all physically measurable and that -- to a phsyicist.

It is more than that. Firstly he arranged those lines in a particular way so as to express a feeling which he has, and which he would like to transmit. He sees and hears the whole thing in his mind, and feels each beat, harmony and melody as the essence of the very thing he feels. This expression transcends all science and logic. The only true way to understand it, is to surrender your mind, body and soul and accept it, regardless of whether you like it or not. Otherwise you will only see it from your own logical perspective.

And a professional musician could say all the technical stuff about it, dissect it into tacts, and notes, and passages, etc. And a psychologist could line up all sorts of connections to emotional states etc.
I know all that, but it doesn't make The Sixth any less beautiful for me -- because I don't think that a thing can be adequately re-presented.

It doesn't matter what these professionals say. What matters is your relationship with the phenomenon.
It is the same with holy texts.

And frankly, considering something 'holy' is also just another re-presentation.

Something which is holy, is holy whether you consider it to be or not. "Holy" is not abitrary, as i said before, it is something that is connected with God, essentially. To consider something "holy" based on a whim, is a false notion.

Absoluteness is possible when there is no interpretation, ie. no subject and no object. But we, by definition, cannot be aware of such an "absolute observation".

That in itself is an absolute statement, and as such you have contradicted yourself. Surrender is the key to understanding.

For there are two aspects of holiness to be considered here:
1. Why does something become holy in the first place?

All the holy relics have always been holy from time imemorial. Sometimes the essence is lost due to time and circumstance. But is always put back in place;

Bhagavad Gita.

The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend; therefore you can understand the transcendental mystery of this science.

2. Why does it keep the quality of holiness?

Because it is essentially connected with God, and His quality is eternal. When God is omitted, it loses it holy/spiritual qualities.

Ad 2: Because of tradition -- because the social group practising a certain kind of holiness as stated in 1., was a successful and viable social group.

This is not holiness, it is survival.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

RosaMagika,

The logical approcah does not take the beauty out of a slam-dunk!

No, but it will never be the same as the reality.

The logical approach is NOT THERE TO REPLACE the real thing!

It shouldn't i agree. It is there to help one understand the subject matter from that perspective. But as i said, logic is incomplete in that it is only consistant with our current understanding of certain laws. Logic cannot explain or describe the essence of a piece of music, or emotions.

Thinking that science tries to replace the real thing is a misconception of science.

So what is GM food if not a kind of replacement?

Beethoven's Sixth Symphony is just a line of sounds, all physically measurable and that -- to a phsyicist.

It is more than that. Firstly he arranged those lines in a particular way so as to express a feeling which he has, and which he would like to transmit. He sees and hears the whole thing in his mind, and feels each beat, harmony and melody as the essence of the very thing he feels. This expression transcends all science and logic. The only true way to understand it, is to surrender your mind, body and soul and accept it, regardless of whether you like it or not. Otherwise you will only see it from your own logical perspective.

And a professional musician could say all the technical stuff about it, dissect it into tacts, and notes, and passages, etc. And a psychologist could line up all sorts of connections to emotional states etc.
I know all that, but it doesn't make The Sixth any less beautiful for me -- because I don't think that a thing can be adequately re-presented.

It doesn't matter what these professionals say. What matters is your relationship with the phenomenon.
It is the same with holy texts.

And frankly, considering something 'holy' is also just another re-presentation.

Something which is holy, is holy whether you consider it to be or not. "Holy" is not abitrary, as i said before, it is something that is connected with God, essentially. To consider something "holy" based on a whim, is a false notion.

Absoluteness is possible when there is no interpretation, ie. no subject and no object. But we, by definition, cannot be aware of such an "absolute observation".

That in itself is an absolute statement, and as such you have contradicted yourself. Surrender is the key to understanding.

For there are two aspects of holiness to be considered here:
1. Why does something become holy in the first place?

All the holy relics have always been holy from time imemorial. Sometimes the essence is lost due to time and circumstance. But is always put back in place;

Bhagavad Gita.

The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you because you are My devotee as well as My friend; therefore you can understand the transcendental mystery of this science.

2. Why does it keep the quality of holiness?

Because it is essentially connected with God, and His quality are eternal. When God is omitted, it loses it holy/spiritual qualities.

Ad 2: Because of tradition -- because the social group practising a certain kind of holiness as stated in 1., was a successful and viable social group.

This is not holiness, it is survival.

Jan Ardena.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

So, as a "calculated business move" it would be infintately better for your long-term interests, which would have certain implicaitons for your short-term decisions, but these will be as diverse and unpredictable as ever.

Me converting would be a CALCULATED BUSINESS MOVE, and I stand by that!
It is like marrying for money, and money alone!!
I am amazed at how coldhearted religious people sometimes are.



Jan Ardena,

“The logical approcah does not take the beauty out of a slam-dunk! ”
No, but it will never be the same as the reality.

Who did ever say that it would/should/could be the same like reality?!

Logic cannot explain or describe the essence of a piece of music, or emotions.

I doesn't want to, I think. Saying that it attempts to explain or describe the essence of things is a prejudice against science. Science makes it easier for us to live with things.

“Thinking that science tries to replace the real thing is a misconception of science. ”
So what is GM food if not a kind of replacement?

Is it?! It is still food, and it fulfills the functions of food -- it does the eaxct same thing as "normal food". (But don't get me wrong: I am against GM food. It is science gone wild.)

“Beethoven's Sixth Symphony is just a line of sounds, all physically measurable and that -- to a phsyicist. ”
It is more than that. Firstly he arranged those lines in a particular way so as to express a feeling which he has, and which he would like to transmit. He sees and hears the whole thing in his mind, and feels each beat, harmony and melody as the essence of the very thing he feels. This expression transcends all science and logic.

Hold on, read what I wrote: "Beethoven's /.../-- to a ***phsyicist.***" Also, you don't know what went on in Ludwig's head when he was writing that.

The only true way to understand it, is to surrender your mind, body and soul and accept it, regardless of whether you like it or not. Otherwise you will only see it from your own logical perspective.

Right on.

It doesn't matter what these professionals say. What matters is your relationship with the phenomenon.

It *does* matter what the *professionals* say: that is, if I would wish to discuss that symphony with a professional, I would have to use a certain professional code of theirs.

You said, "The only true way to understand it, is to surrender your mind, body and soul and accept it, regardless of whether you like it or not. Otherwise you will only see it from your own logical perspective."
But the thing is then that eventually, I cannot talk to anybody about the Sixth. Surrendering myself completely to it DISABLES me to *talk* about it. Or, at best, I can come up with some pathetic words of amazement and bewilderment -- and *I* *don't want* to do that. I would betray *my* understanding of the Sixth if I would talk about it.

But living in a society and being a social being, we DO talk about things, we take POV's, perspectives, sometimes more coherent than other, sometimes more logical than other, sometimes more hearty than other.
And also, we strive to survive, this is why about some things, we need to talk about, and be practical as to make them useful for our survival.

Something which is holy, is holy whether you consider it to be or not. "Holy" is not abitrary, as i said before, it is something that is connected with God, essentially. To consider something "holy" based on a whim, is a false notion.

Do you think that science, the logical approach are whims?

“Absoluteness is possible when there is no interpretation, ie. no subject and no object. But we, by definition, cannot be aware of such an "absolute observation". ”
That in itself is an absolute statement, and as such you have contradicted yourself. Surrender is the key to understanding.

Good point. But surrendering also means to not use any words for a certain sensation. Since words are always a sign, a replacement for something.
So by surrendering, we may understand something -- but we cannot talk about it! For words are limiting. So what's the point of an absolute understanding, if you are bound to keep it to yourself?!

I take that some things, we do keep to ourselves, and those are holy to us. Some things, concerning our survival, we need to talk about. Which things are that, is a matter of many factors, mainly the social environment we live in.

“Ad 2: Because of tradition -- because the social group practising a certain kind of holiness as stated in 1., was a successful and viable social group. ”
This is not holiness, it is survival.

If there are no worshipers of something -- yes, a certain thing may remain holy. But how are other people to know that that is holy if there is noone to tell them that? How are we to know that somethng is holy -- if there are no other people who worship that, and no texts about it?

 

[water]

Jan Ardena and Jenyar,


How can you tell what is holy and what is not holy?

The Christian Bible is regarded as holy. It is said that God dictated it to men, and they wrote it down.

How do you know that Beethoven's Sixth Symphony is not holy? How do you know that it was not God who told Beethoven which notes to put down on paper?

 

[Jenyar]

Anything can be holy - as I said, it's an attributive term. In fact, our task is to keep things holy. The Bible is considered "holy" because it is dedicated (consecrated) to God and the service of God. So are we.

Holiness basically describes a clear and unadulterated relationship with God, and anything that establishes that.

 

[water]

Anything can be holy - as I said, it's an attributive term. In fact, our task is to keep things holy. The Bible is considered "holy" because it is dedicated (consecrated) to God and the service of God. So are we.

So it is in the end humans who decide whether something is holy or not? -- By performing certain actions?

I mean for example, I could get a few thousand Beethoven fans, and we dedicate and consecrate The Sixth Symphony to God, and use in the service of God -- and it will be holy?

I'm serious, I'm not trying to provoke you, I'm just trying to figure out the concept of holiness.

 

[Jan Ardena]

RosaMagika,

“The logical approcah does not take the beauty out of a slam-dunk! ”
No, but it will never be the same as the reality.

Who did ever say that it would/should/could be the same like reality?!

Exactly! Which is why i said the request made by wesmorris was trickery.

Is it?! It is still food, and it fulfills the functions of food -- it does the eaxct same thing as "normal food".

Then why create it?

Also, you don't know what went on in Ludwig's head when he was writing that.

Who said i did?

It *does* matter what the *professionals* say: that is, if I would wish to discuss that symphony with a professional, I would have to use a certain professional code of theirs.

Professional what? Critics or musicians? Both are people who do their job for money, other than that they have no extra qualification which sets them apart from their un-professional couterpart.

Surrendering myself completely to it DISABLES me to *talk* about it. Or, at best, I can come up with some pathetic words of amazement and bewilderment -- and *I* *don't want* to do that. I would betray *my* understanding of the Sixth if I would talk about it.

How on earth have you come to this conclusion?
If you want to understand something you have to surrender; UNDER-STAND....STAND-UNDER. What you do with your understanding is entirely up to you.

Do you think that science, the logical approach are whims?

No. But some scientists (particularly atheistic ones) are whimsical. Just look at macro-evolution.

But surrendering also means to not use any words for a certain sensation.

What on earth are you talking about?

So what's the point of an absolute understanding, if you are bound to keep it to yourself?!

I have no idea what you are implying, please please explain.

If there are no worshipers of something -- yes, a certain thing may remain holy.

Holiness has nothing to do with materialism, it is completely trancendental. It does not come into being or go out of fashion. It gets lost in the minds of beings who have the capacity to understand it. So the process of a new religion is to awaken the individual out of his illusory relationship with the temporal world and understand who and what he is, and what his purpose is.

But how are other people to know that that is holy if there is noone to tell them that? How are we to know that somethng is holy -- if there are no other people who worship that, and no texts about it?

How do you know that you like orange juice or not? How do you know, without thinking, exactly how much tension is needed when putting pen to paper, in order to write fluently?
How do you know whether you like/love someone/thing or not? Are there any texts or instructions to tell you?
You need to understand what and who you are, this is the key to answering your question. SELF-REALISATION.
Unfortunately the predominent religion of the day, atheism/humanism, tells you that you are nothing more than an elaborate machine, which evolved from dead chemicals which poped into existence out of nothing, and if you cannot explain something logically, then it has no meaning. If this is what you adhere to, then the answer to your question is, you will never know. Then you die.

Holy texts is a recent thing in historical terms. The oldest texts are the Vedas, which have been dated at approximately between 5-6 thousand years old. The previous way religious truths were communicated, was aurally (disiplic succession). Texts were introduced to accomodate the modern human, whose intelligence was and is on a slippery slope downwards, getting closer to animal intelligence. But still the best way is to hear from someone.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

So it is in the end humans who decide whether something is holy or not? -- By performing certain actions?

Not quite, we have to base our understanding on something (to link up with what Jan said). The best way to understand what God considers holy is to follow the development of the concept through Biblical history. That's probably where I disagree with Jan - self-realization will only bring you full circle if you don't take God's preference into account. It's certainly part of it, but there are many self-actualized atheists out there who don't regard anything as holy.

To understand what is "holy" you have to realize you should be holy yourself, and that means understanding that God created you separate from certain things that will defile you, and you have to honour that separation to remain holy. "Be holy, because God is holy, and you were created in His image" about sums it up. Holiness is derived from God alone, and we are holy insofar we reflect his mage.

To answer your question about the 6th Symphony, it would only be as "holy" as the person playing it, so there's actually no benefit in considering it such. Music is something that proceeds from a person, but it doesn't "belong" to anyone in particular, so it can't be completely separated in that sense.

 

[wesmorris]

Holiness basically describes a clear and unadulterated relationship with God, and anything that establishes that.

What is so strange about this to me, is that "holy" doesn't exist to me... so we could be standing together, pointing a x which you insist is "holy x" and I'd be all, well okay.. but all I see is x.

Then I start thinking about what you've done by making it holy. Have we considered that?

If it was toilet paper and I had to go, would you keep me from using it?

If so, IMO, your allowance for an object to be "holy" is a source of physical conflict. Hmm. It must be about function. To you, there is some "sprititual function" of the toilet paper, but to me I see the obvious intended use and intend to undertake it. To you, the "spiritual function" is just as "real" (if you're a "true believer") as my ass requirements. The major difference being that I can show you my ass (I can't help it, pardon) but you can only show me your "true belief" through your actions.

Hmm. Not sure where I'm going with that. I'm trying to be fair from both perspectives but it's difficult to separate from that which is intrinsic to me.

 

[Jenyar]

Wes,

That's a very interesting perspective. In your example the toilet paper would be "holy" to you, because of its non-negotiable, inalienable value It derives is status from its function and your intent. If you were to wet it and throw it against the roof instead of wiping your ass, you would be (very ironically) defiling it. So there would be physical conflict between necessity and pleasure - you might even reason that there's another roll in the cupboard so it would be okay to waste this one, but the example is a little ... mundane... to demonstrate the moral implications sufficiently.

Holiness signifies a dedication to something, and to that thing alone. Moses had to take off his shoes when he stepped onto holy ground. The ground was holy because of God's presence, and taking off your shoes shows respect (as we see in Mosques to this day). Consider the implications of Jesus declaring our bodies the temple of God.

 

[Flores]

But that was Jesus. The guy who turns stone to bread. The guy who resurrects the dead. The guy who commands the weather. The guy feeds people out of nothing. My friend the legendary Jesus was something else. His words was supposed to be backed up by miracles and wonders. Anybody who heard or witnessed those phenomenon and still harrasses the worker of wonders was truly making a BIIIIIG mistake! Mohammed on the other hand was nothing but hot air. Why should anyone take him seriously? :m:

Is that why people like you still tortured and disbelieved in jesus and even send him to the cross and forced him to carry his own death on his shoudler while taunting him and throwing him with tomatoes and eggs and whipping his body with metal rods???

I don't need miracles and wonders to believe in my creator...You on the other hand require the 3-D live demo run in colors on a power point presentation...and you still would disbelieve.

 

[Flores]

This is just such capitalistic thinking! I'm sorry, but it is. Sadly, but yes, today we seem to think that there must be a reason for everything, or else it is not worth doing it. Even a reason for happiness.

My friend, it's very simple....Without complete understanding, without just justification, you are aimelessly following your own conjenctures and what you may think today is harmony and happiness may end up being evil and destruction. Without a datum or base of normality to define your action and how they relate in the bigger defined sense of creation, you are a selfish slave of your moment.

 

[Flores]

The thing that is shrewd (and wrong) with this is thinking that death is non-harmonic. This is what many religions say. But this is just their way to say that human reason is limited -- and that humans are often very sad about that.

Why do you think that death is non-harmonic?

It's not I that think that death is non-harmonic, it's you with your postulating that "I think therefore I am" that renders death as an abrupt loss. Your views are non harmonistic and extreme, you think of life as an infinite opportunity to spread harmony, then you characterise death as dissolution, non-existance, decay, and loss of life. There extremes can't be balanced the way you view them.

The theistic veiw is more natural and harmonias with nature. Consider that a death of a single fruit in a human or animal stomach marks the rise or evolution of the simple plant life to animal or human life. Such death is more orderly and created than life.

Death is superior to life and if you reflect carefully on the stages of development of humans, you'll see that as apparant fact. Death is a release from the narrow, irksome, turbulent, and agitated prison of this world and the rise or decend to other appropriate forms of life. If you are thinking that I must be smoking, then consider the calamity involved in extending the life of your great great grandparents till today if that was possible. Consider how miserable would you and they be to stay long in this world in a pitiful aged stage. Consider what would happen to our world if animals and plants never died and only aged. Consider how ugly our world would be.

Religion doesn't teach fear of death....it's the opposite....lack of believe possess every reason to fear death and actively teach us that death is to be feared.....lack of believe exposes the ugly appearance of death, defines death wrongly as mere decomposition and thinks that death extinguishes the light of life and destroys pleasures. Religion on the other hand places event in the correct order and places little attention to the outer ugly appearance of death while concentrating on the real positive meaning of death.

 

[water]

Jan Ardena,

“Is it?! It is still food, and it fulfills the functions of food -- it does the eaxct same thing as "normal food". ”
Then why create it?

Because it is *economically more feasible*. Natural plants and even hybrids are prone to fall to diseases, parasites of all kinds. GM's are much more resistant to diseases, less pesticides are needed, plus they usually also earn more per acre unit. GM's are more cost-effective than naturals.

“Also, you don't know what went on in Ludwig's head when he was writing that. ”
Who said i did?
You said: "It is more than that. Firstly he arranged those lines in a particular way so as to express a feeling which he has, and which he would like to transmit. He sees and hears the whole thing in his mind, and feels each beat, harmony and melody as the essence of the very thing he feels. This expression transcends all science and logic. "

How are you supposed to know that "Firstly he arranged those lines in a particular way so as to express a feeling which he has, and which he would like to transmit. "??
And how are you supposed to know that "He sees and hears the whole thing in his mind, and feels each beat, harmony and melody as the essence of the very thing he feels."??

These are your *assumptions*, based on a *certain POV* of how music can be made, based on your musical expertise. Who knows whether B. actually had feelings there. This we only assume. Music can also be written as a pure mathematical construct. Take serial music. Take Bach.

The only difference between what you said about B. writing that symphony and what a, say, physicist or professional musician would say is this: You made your claim from a supposedly unbiased POV, and those professionals make their claims from their "scientifically specific" POV.

“It *does* matter what the *professionals* say: that is, if I would wish to discuss that symphony with a professional, I would have to use a certain professional code of theirs. ”
Professional what? Critics or musicians? Both are people who do their job for money, other than that they have no extra qualification which sets them apart from their un-professional couterpart.

It doesn't matter whether they are critics or musicians. If I wish to discuss a piece with them on a *professional level*, I need to know their terminology, I need to know what "passage", "tact", "variation", "canon" and so on are.

Do you think that science, the logical approach are whims?
"No. But some scientists (particularly atheistic ones) are whimsical. Just look at macro-evolution."

Well, there are proud bastards and jerks everywhere, regardless whether they are religious or not.

“Surrendering myself completely to it DISABLES me to *talk* about it. Or, at best, I can come up with some pathetic words of amazement and bewilderment -- and *I* *don't want* to do that. I would betray *my* understanding of the Sixth if I would talk about it. ”
How on earth have you come to this conclusion?
If you want to understand something you have to surrender; UNDER-STAND....STAND-UNDER. What you do with your understanding is entirely up to you.
“But surrendering also means to not use any words for a certain sensation. ”
What on earth are you talking about?
“So what's the point of an absolute understanding, if you are bound to keep it to yourself?! ”
I have no idea what you are implying, please please explain.

I think that as soon as we talk about somethig, we talk from a certain POV. Therefore, there is *no absolute* way to *talk* about something. When you suggested that one needs to "surrender oneself completely" in order to really "understand" it, I understand this surrender to go further than verbally realizable-- and words therefore cannot express this.
So, as soon as we talk about something, we bastardize it in this or that manner. Like when you suggested how B. wrote that symphony -- that may be as you said, or not. Do you think that there is an UNBIASED way of talking about something?

Fact is, that words can't express or name every thing that we feel, you know the line "Words can't say how much I love you".
What words can do, is that they express certain feelings or thoughts from a certain POV. And this POV can be scientific (musically scientific, physically scientific, chemically scientific ...), religious (Christianly religious, Muslim religious, Jewish religiouos, ...), personal (Anna's personal POV, Peter's personal POV, ...). As soon as you talk, you talk from a certain POV, and once you talk from a POV, it is not absolute.

Surrendering myself completely to it DISABLES me to *talk* about it. And yet, religious texts and practices are full of words, words and definitons of what something is. Religions go the same way as sciences: they use a set of names and defintions. And why should one set of names and definitions be more true to the thing than another set of names and definitions?

"God's love", "karma", "atonement", "samsara" .... So I could experience something, and am then, by a certain religion obliged to call it "God's love", for example.
Probably, that's the essence of religion: to name something in a certain way, and call this name-giving relation absolute.

How do you know that you like orange juice or not? /.../
You need to understand what and who you are, this is the key to answering your question. SELF-REALISATION.

Yes, but hereby you suggest that we have something like an implanted idea of what holy is, and we just need to dig in ourselves for it.

Many religions say that. But how come then, are there MORE possible self-realizations of myself -- say a Christian one, a Muslim one, a Buddhist one, ...? Which one is the right one?

This is where I think that the concept of religion is flawed: it suggests that there is a static, permanent entity within the self, which is always there, and always the same. It may be covered by social specifics, environmental influences, experiences, ... but it is there, you just need to dig to it, they say.

Many religions obvioulsy fail to see that they are actually self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating systems. You become what you practise.

For example, one day, I might get the idea "There is a God" and then, due to curiosity or insecurity, I will make myself on the way to find out more about this God. I start reading stuff, and slowly I begin to perceive everyday phenomena as "realizations of God, God's work" and become more and more sure of it, in the end, I consider myself religious and belonging to a certain religion. But does that mean that those things that I peceive to be by God are really by God?

It's the same as when you read a medical handbook: you suddenly find yourself having symptoms for malaria, tuberculosis, leukemia, ... And it gets hard to figure out just what exactly it is that you have. While at the same time, you might be doing perfectly well.
All you did when reading that book was identifying yourself with the condition described, in order that you could understand the condition.

And that's the clue: we are able to identify ourselves with things. We wish to understand things, and in order to understand them, we need to identify ourselves with them.

But whether we persist in that identification -- that's a whole different issue.

Unfortunately the predominent religion of the day, atheism/humanism, tells you that you are nothing more than an elaborate machine, which evolved from dead chemicals which poped into existence out of nothing, and if you cannot explain something logically, then it has no meaning.

While I agree with what modern science says about human descent, this doesn't mean that I perceive my whole being from the POV of atheism/humanism. I don't know, I never had a problem with that.

Texts were introduced to accomodate the modern human, whose intelligence was and is on a slippery slope downwards, getting closer to animal intelligence.

That is just absurd and disgusting!!! Getting closer to animal intelligence???
Animals don't kill for sport, humans do. Animals don't destroy the planet they are living on, humans do. If anything, humans have great troubles being at least remotely as noble as animals are. For the record, I am appalled by humans.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

“So it is in the end humans who decide whether something is holy or not? -- By performing certain actions? ”
Not quite, we have to base our understanding on something (to link up with what Jan said). The best way to understand what God considers holy is to follow the development of the concept through Biblical history. That's probably where I disagree with Jan - self-realization will only bring you full circle if you don't take God's preference into account. It's certainly part of it, but there are many self-actualized atheists out there who don't regard anything as holy.

I don't consider myself an atheist, but I do have many things that I regard as holy. I don't have words for them though, as I think that would be untrue to those things. I guess, most organized religions would call me a defiled and defiling heathen. But believe it or not, it is possible to regard things as holy and not believe in any kind of human-like/human-making God.

To understand what is "holy" you have to realize you should be holy yourself, and that means understanding that God created you separate from certain things that will defile you, and you have to honour that separation to remain holy. "Be holy, because God is holy, and you were created in His image" about sums it up. Holiness is derived from God alone, and we are holy insofar we reflect his mage.

I think this is just the Christian concept of understanding the self and individuality. There are other ways to regard something as individual.

To answer your question about the 6th Symphony, it would only be as "holy" as the person playing it, so there's actually no benefit in considering it such. Music is something that proceeds from a person, but it doesn't "belong" to anyone in particular, so it can't be completely separated in that sense.

What?! Speaking proceeds from a person too, and sometimes, it is regarded as holy, and sometimes it is regarded as vile.

The same verse from the Bible, once spoken by someone regarded as holy -- will be holy? But if a person regarded as defiled speaks this same verse, then this verse is not holy (anymore)?

It must be that you have a very clearly defined *list* of things that can be holy and things that cannot be not holy. Present this list.

Holiness basically describes a clear and unadulterated relationship with God, and anything that establishes that.

This means that holiness is a relational phenomenon. It is the kind of relationship that person A has to object X. Meaning that this relationship that A has is A's perception and doing: holiness of X is A's thing.

Why couldn't The Sixth be holy to me?

 

[water]

Flores,

My friend, it's very simple....Without complete understanding, without just justification, you are aimelessly following your own conjenctures and what you may think today is harmony and happiness may end up being evil and destruction.

Like what the Christians and Muslims did, killing millions?! Those Christians and Muslims did think they act right, and in the name of harmony and happiness.

Without a datum or base of normality to define your action and how they relate in the bigger defined sense of creation, you are a selfish slave of your moment.

Hold ye on! I did not invent myself, and I don't live in this world alone. My standards and values are not my alone. I am a member of a society. In this regard, we are all members of social groups; and we are not all members of the same group.
Or are you saying that only one religion is right?

"Why do you think that death is non-harmonic?"
It's not I that think that death is non-harmonic, it's you with your postulating that "I think therefore I am" that renders death as an abrupt loss. Your views are non harmonistic and extreme, you think of life as an infinite opportunity to spread harmony, then you characterise death as dissolution, non-existance, decay, and loss of life. There extremes can't be balanced the way you view them.

I think that there was a misunderstanding: Personally, I do not go for Descartes' philosophy and its offsprings. I only presented it as an example of a thinking system where death is regarded as non-harmonic.

The theistic veiw is more natural and harmonias with nature.

You mean: Harmonious with nature the way a certain theist would define "harmonious with nature"?!

I don't think modern humans can live harmoniously with nature.

Consider that a death of a single fruit in a human or animal stomach marks the rise or evolution of the simple plant life to animal or human life. Such death is more orderly and created than life.

Ah, how humanly!

Death is superior to life and if you reflect carefully on the stages of development of humans, you'll see that as apparant fact.

Why should it be "superior" to life? Who made the hierarchy?
Prove that death is "superior" to life.

Death is a release from the narrow, irksome, turbulent, and agitated prison of this world and the rise or decend to other appropriate forms of life.

I do not consider this world as a "narrow, irksome, turbulent, and agitated". The world is the way it is, sometimes good for me, sometimes bad for me. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO.

If you are thinking that I must be smoking, then consider the calamity involved in extending the life of your great great grandparents till today if that was possible. Consider how miserable would you and they be to stay long in this world in a pitiful aged stage. Consider what would happen to our world if animals and plants never died and only aged. Consider how ugly our world would be.

Why should I actually consider something that doesn't happen? What you are presenting are negative wishful fancies. Why?

 

[DoctorNO]

Is that why people like you still tortured and disbelieved in jesus and even send him to the cross and forced him to carry his own death on his shoudler while taunting him and throwing him with tomatoes and eggs and whipping his body with metal rods???

Those are just stories and nothing more.

I don't need miracles and wonders to believe in my creator...

Then why follow islam? Cant you just believe in God without being a member of any specific religion? Remember that different religions dictate specific personalities to God that are not necessarily true. The version of God you are believing into may not be representing the the true creator, if he exists.

The reason I need evidences is to determine whose version of God is closer to the true creator. Is the islamic god the true version of god? i need evidences. Is it the christian god? evidences please. is it hinduism. prove it.

You on the other hand require the 3-D live demo run in colors on a power point presentation...and you still would disbelieve.

That is so artificial. Of course I wont buy it.

I have an open mind but my mind aint too open as to let my brains fall out. :m:

 

[DoctorNO]

Flores, again why should anyone take Mohammad seriously?

 

[Pakman]

Is the islamic god the true version of god? i need evidences. Is it the christian god? evidences please. is it hinduism. prove it.

Sir, I could quote verse after verse from the Quran and then elaborate on each verse to explain to you how Muslims believe that the "Islamic God" is the real God, yet I will not engage in such a discussion with you. I am here to learn about other religions, debate about it, see why believe the way they do, but I am NOT here to waste my time explaining to a person who is known for showing his hatred on these forums!

You ask for evidence. I will quote the Quran. Then you will reply only saying the Quran is not evidence.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Flores]

Why should it be "superior" to life? Who made the hierarchy?
Prove that death is "superior" to life.

It's from death that life emerge and not vice versa....Death is the originator, life is a mere product.

In the scheme of time frame, death seems to own a much longer slot than life.

Death is freedom from physical ailments.

Aging and death are the most necessary ingredient for renewal of life.

Death is the provider for life, without the older generations dying, our current generations would never get a chance.

Death defines equality, justice, and humbles the human soul. Noone regardless of how rich and powerfull can escape the concept of death. Life have many inequalities.

And many more.