What makes a holy text holy?

[Flores]

Flores, again why should anyone take Mohammad seriously?

You are missing the whole point by your negative skepticism. Let's say for example that we found out that newton was a murderer, a theif, a rotten human being...Do you think we would drop all his laws of motion and abandon them because he's not worthy of being taken seriously. The merit of the work must stand independantly of the author. It shouldn't matter who delivered the Quran and whether Mohammed said it or a camel or a donkey miraculously uttered the words. The merit of the Quran is in the actual words and not the messanger, just like the merit of the laws of motion is that they actually make sense regardless of whether Newton himself make sense or not.

 

[DoctorNO]

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!

Mr Pakman, people change. Some of Mohammad's companions hated Islam too at first. I am not very hard to convince so long as you make sense. Just tell me what you think are the top 3 reasons.

 

[DoctorNO]

You are missing the whole point by your negative skepticism. Let's say for example that we found out that newton was a murderer, a theif, a rotten human being...Do you think we would drop all his laws of motion and abandon them because he's not worthy of being taken seriously. The merit of the work must stand independantly of the author. It shouldn't matter who delivered the Quran and whether Mohammed said it or a camel or a donkey miraculously uttered the words. The merit of the Quran is in the actual words and not the messanger, just like the merit of the laws of motion is that they actually make sense regardless of whether Newton himself make sense or not.

About Newton, of course not. Even if he murdered millions of people we would still recognize him as one of the greatest scientists of all time because his scientific revelations could be proven by anyone at any time.

But what about mohammed? What validates his claims? Why should anyone in his time (or ours) take him seriously?

 

[water]

Flores,

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

It must be that I have grown up in the middle of blossoming fields ...
Your ideas seem just so negative, calculated and mind-boggling to me.
It must be horrible where you are.


Pakman,

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.

There is no doubt that the Muslims believe that Allah is the only real God, and the Quran says so. And there is no doubt that Christians believe that Jehowah is the only real God, and the Bible says so.
And so on, for each God and each holy text.

But, for example, outside of the Quran and the other Islamic writings, there is no other religion saying that Allah is the only real God.
Basically, you have only one source for your arguments -- the Quran and other Islamic writings.

For a logical and argumented discussion, we are used to present several *different* sources.
***
I could say that XY is the only real God, and present my writings as evidence and source of arguments for that.

If you say that the Quran and other Islamic writings are sufficient evidence for Allah, then you are also saying that ONE source suffices for argumentation and evidence.
Which also means that my writings are just as well a sufficient source for arguing that XY is the only real God.

Do you agree?

 

[Jenyar]

Well, Mohammed managed to pull together all Arabs into one nation again. That's not a feat lightly accomplished. The difference between him and Jesus is that Jesus provided a personal salvation based on his own life, while Mohammed made no such claims - he could only refer everybody to the Quran on its own merit.

 

[water]

Let's say for example that we found out that newton was a murderer, a theif, a rotten human being...Do you think we would drop all his laws of motion and abandon them because he's not worthy of being taken seriously. The merit of the work must stand independantly of the author.

That is questionable, if we *would* still accept Newton's theory if he would be a "rotten human being". First of all, we cannot possibly know what WOULD be IF ... It is just speculation. So it could be that we would accept Newton, or that we wouldn't accept him.

This is not a strong example, but within music theory it is: Franz Schubert was poor and died of syphillis. For some 150 years his work has been not very appreciated, he had always been put away. And then it turned out that the reason was his "unclean" life. That syphillis is what bothered people so much that they discarded him. It was only later, that his work was re-evaluated and now he is regarded as one of the big ones, and his syphillis is sort of "forgiven".

The work of the author technically must stand independently of the author, but this is not even remotely so in reality.

 

[water]

Well, Mohammed managed to pull together all Arabs into one nation again. That's not a feat lightly accomplished. The difference between him and Jesus is that Jesus provided a personal salvation based on his own life, while Mohammed made no such claims - he could only refer everybody to the Quran on its own merit.

Did Jesus, before he was crucified, know that he would be resurrected? Did he believe in that? Did he believe that he was the Son of God?

 

[Jenyar]

Did Jesus, before he was crucified, know that he would be resurrected? Did he believe in that? Did he believe that he was the Son of God?

Yes. He knew what would happen to the "Son of Man" of Daniel's prophecy, said He would rise from the dead after three days - what he called the "sign of Jonah" (Matt. 12:40; cf. Mark 8:31). But he left it to the disciples to make the connection between him, the Son of God and the Son of Man, in other words he let his life and resurrection speak for itself to establish the truth of his words. But Jesus did say He would rebuild the temple in three days if it was destroyed (John 2:19), which the disciples later recalled:

21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.​

But he knew it by faith, which you discount as real knowledge. Jesus couldn't prove it before it happened other than by confirming all the other prophecies were applicable to him and true. It wasn't empirical knowledge, which is the only kind of knowledge scientists accept for "fact".

 

[Flores]

Well, Mohammed managed to pull together all Arabs into one nation again. That's not a feat lightly accomplished.

Mohamed didn't manage to pull anything together. It was the fresh idea of ONE CREATOR that temporarily energized people and pulled them together, but of course just like anything else, people forget and deviate in a very short time.....Take the Jews for example, only a few days after the sea was parted infront of their own eyes, they took a cow for worship...Ot take the christians for example, right after Jesus left them they worshipped him and forgot everything he stood for and died for. Muslims are no better...We are all made of the same rotten mud pie.

The difference between him and Jesus is that Jesus provided a personal salvation based on his own life, while Mohammed made no such claims - he could only refer everybody to the Quran on its own merit.

Jesus served god and god alone, he performed all his miracles and lived all his life in the name of god and not in the name of Jesus....Jesus personal salvation just like his life was to god and not to other humans. Mohamed life was similar in the sense of dedication to god. If we can't follow that example of self responsbility and dedication to god and we prefer to hang onto a scape goat, then we haven't learned anything.

 

[Flores]

Flores,


It must be that I have grown up in the middle of blossoming fields ...
Your ideas seem just so negative, calculated and mind-boggling to me.
It must be horrible where you are.

My ideas are dependant on your perception...You tried to play a role that you don't like by initially claiming that death is harmonias and in complete correlation with life, yet when I tried to ask you to dance the dance, the realities of your fears was exposed. You ignore and deny death, and that's not a healthy or real way to live.


And by the way, I live in a beautifull state in the east coast with quite breathtaking blooms at this time of year, 30 years old, mother of two beautifull children, great life, ect, ect...but that doesn't cause me to ignore or prevent me from coming in peace with a very natural aspect of my life called death. An aspect that is often ignored by people. Death is my afterlife and traffic light that regulates my life...how can it be so simply ignored and put on the shelf?

 

[Flores]

About Newton, of course not. Even if he murdered millions of people we would still recognize him as one of the greatest scientists of all time because his scientific revelations could be proven by anyone at any time.

And how about it if you learned that Newton actually stole the work from other unknown sources....That's the truth... Would you still consider him as one of the greatest scientists of all time??? And how would that revelation that the work was stolen affect the merit of the work? I would imagine that work would still be categorized as the greatest work of all time regardless of the authorship. You are very reasonable man, so I'm sure you'll agree with me that newton is not important at all and we should be discussing purely laws of motion regardless of where they came from even if they fell from the sky, got inspired by an angel, stolen from pirates, compiled from ancient scriptures, ect....Who cares...right??

What makes Newton's work scientific is the equivalent of what makes the Quran holly? You have to understand science to classify or declassify scientific work and you must understand holly to do the same with scriptures.

 

[water]

Flores,

My ideas are dependant on your perception...You tried to play a role that you don't like by initially claiming that death is harmonias and in complete correlation with life, yet when I tried to ask you to dance the dance, the realities of your fears was exposed. You ignore and deny death, and that's not a healthy or real way to live.

I IGNORE and DENY death?! Where did you get that from? Where did *I* *say* that I ignore or deny death?
Just because I don't ascribe to YOUR THEORY of life and death, that doesn't mean that I am afraid of death or that I ignore it or deny it.



Jenyar,

"Did Jesus, before he was crucified, know that he would be resurrected? Did he believe in that? Did he believe that he was the Son of God?"
Yes. He knew what would happen to the "Son of Man" of Daniel's prophecy, said He would rise from the dead after three days - what he called the "sign of Jonah" (Matt. 12:40; cf. Mark 8:31). But he left it to the disciples to make the connection between him, the Son of God and the Son of Man, in other words he let his life and resurrection speak for itself to establish the truth of his words. But Jesus did say He would rebuild the temple in three days if it was destroyed (John 2:19), which the disciples later recalled:
21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

But he knew it by faith, which you discount as real knowledge. Jesus couldn't prove it before it happened other than by confirming all the other prophecies were applicable to him and true. It wasn't empirical knowledge, which is the only kind of knowledge scientists accept for "fact".

What I am aiming at is this: If nothing was really lost for ever, no life had actually been sacrificed, if Jesus was resurrected -- how then can one claim that "Jesus died for our sins and atoned for them"?

If he *would not know* that he would be resurrected after his death, then yes, then we could view his death as a sacrifice.

But if he *did know* that he would be resurrected -- where is the point of calling it sacrifice?
His death is then nothing special -- in the sense that thousands of people died that same death by crucifiction.


Also,

But he knew it by faith, which you discount as real knowledge.

When did I ever say that I discount faith as real knowledge?!

 

[Jenyar]

What I am aiming at is this: If nothing was really lost for ever, no life had actually been sacrificed, if Jesus was resurrected -- how then can one claim that "Jesus died for our sins and atoned for them"?

If he *would not know* that he would be resurrected after his death, then yes, then we could view his death as a sacrifice.

But if he *did know* that he would be resurrected -- where is the point of calling it sacrifice?
His death is then nothing special -- in the sense that thousands of people died that same death by crucifiction.

That is precisely why it was an acceptible sacrifice. A conscious sacrifice was required, since an ignorant sacrifice still lacks faith. Faith is a sacrifice of ignorance, in a certain sense - it means accepting the truth and reality of something you cannot see. It's believing in advance what will only make sense in reverse. But perfect faith is based on certainty, and certainty can only come by knowledge.

But the sacrifice of an innocent life - and I mean sinless, one that is in every respect unworthy of punishment or death - is a sacrifice that requires knowledge. It requires that you know you are innocent, and that you know God will judge fairly. That is how Jesus knew He would be resurrected. And in that sense it was "for us", he sacrificed himself so that our knowledge of salvation could be complete. He filled up what we lacked in innocence and knowledge, and that required his life. No other human being could do that convincingly. The only way our lives could be redeemed was if God made it possible - we sinned as humans and required the life of a human to restore ours. And simultaneously, a perfect sacrifice was required to satisfy the requirements of the law. Jesus fulfilled that role in our places on both accounts. He reconciled what the law required from us, and provided what we required to attain eternal life.

Do you understand now what kind of sacrifice Jesus provided?

When did I ever say that I discount faith as real knowledge?!

Sorry, I just assumed you were an atheist. Before Jesus' resurrection, faith in salvation and resurrection could not be considered knowledge, since it wasn't certain. Only God's justice was certain, and mankind's need for redemption was certain. Jesus could offer himself as a sacrifice with unequalled certainty - he presumed the kind of certainty only God himself could possibly have, and that was why he was so dispised by religious leaders. It was also his strength, a strength he passed on to us by giving his life.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

The source of my wonderings about Jesus's sacrifice was this line of thinking from another thread:

Originally Posted by Katazia:
The all time famous quote designed to be a real tear jerker. But the real big problem with this essential basis of Christianity is that God ended up not giving anything – Jesus is meant to have been resurrected which kinda blows away any concept that God has suffered some major loss for which we should feel sorry for him. Had Jesus really died and was lost forever then we could perhaps feel some sympathy for God. Otherwise John 3:16 is a lie – nothing was lost or given up or given.

This seemed valid, but then I wondered: It seems a valid argument against Jesus' sacrifice from OUR PRESENT POV: "if nothing was lost, then no sacrifice took place". But I wanted to make sure whether this argument is not a fallacy; I'm not sure which one, since it seems to be a mixture of several, or a variation of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

But the sacrifice of an innocent life - and I mean sinless, /.../
Do you understand now what kind of sacrifice Jesus provided?

Yes, I now makes sense to me; I wanted to see whether it is consistent in itself. Which doesn't mean that I accept Jesus' sacrifice in my life though.


As for faith vs. real knowledge:

There is quite an issue here, which both believers and non-believers often seem unable to see.

When non-believers/non-religious claim that they have "real knowledge" gained by evidence -- this knowledge is STILL BASED ON FAITH: non-believers have a strong faith that the knowledge gained by evidence is "real knowledge". And this faith is so strong, that they can FORGET it is actually faith; only now and then they really doubt their logical method.

That strong faith that non-believers have in the empirical method is the same strong faith that believers have in their religious method.

It is just the objects and the methods that are different, but both "parties" do have a strong faith. The same thing can be approached from very different angles; one of them is the religious one, another one is the scientific one, then there is the "popular" one, and so on.

Only that in time, the term "faith" became reserved for the "religious method", and "(real) knowledge" became reserved for the "empirical method".

I don't see why one should be more true than the other one.

When it comes to the big questions of "who are we, where did we come from, where are we going" both make their suspicions, and both are sure of them.

What is true though is, that the religious method is more/the only appreciated in religius circles, and the empirical method is more/the only appreciated in scientific circles.

Also, certain methods are simply more practical in everyday life when it comes to matters of survival. And here the empirical method did turn out to be more practical. In fact so practical, that religions have encompassed it into their beliefs.

When I advocate logical reason, I advocate it because it is a tool we can all learn to use, and it can help us to communicate better. At the same time, I think we need to recognize this logical reason as a tool, in order to educate it, so that it won't meddle into things that it is not made for.

The questions of "who are we, where did we come from, where are we going" are NOT in the system of the logical reason; they are beyond it. And this is why the logical reason should not attempt to make assertions about these big questions.

But both the religious believers and the non-believers/non-religious are being often unfair: the religious believers for assuming that logical reason is trying to make assertions about things that are outside of its system; and those non-believers who are making logical assertions about things that are outside of the system of logical reason.

Do you see my point now?

 

[Flores]

Flores,


I IGNORE and DENY death?! Where did you get that from?

Rosie Baby, Everything you have been saying so far is in perfect alignment with my conclusion that you ignore death. And before you yell and scream, consider defining death to me....DO it quickly, if you really have not been ignoring the very real matter, then I would expect to hear an awesome philosophy that you uphold dear about this issue.

And yes, the discussion about death have everything to do with holy. If you can't incorporate the concept of death in your views then your views are not holistic...Holistic views are cellestial, divine, and complete.

 

[Jan Ardena]

RosaMagika,

Because it is *economically more feasible*.

How so?

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.

Food is about life, we basically eat to survive and have been eating natural foodstuffs since the begining of our existence. Why now is organic food an issue to point where we have to try and improve on it?

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. "??

Because that is how you create music.

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."??

How else could he have created such masterpieces?

This we only assume. Music can also be written as a pure mathematical construct. Take serial music. Take Bach.

Then that becomes the feel.

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.

Then ask them to create music without their own expression and see what happens.

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.

Nobody is saying you cannot do as you wish, but knowing their terminology is not essential in discussing a piece of music.

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

Fair point.

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.

When we verbalize, it is usually as a result of how we see something. Words are symbolic expressions of thoughts, feelings and understanding.

Do you think that there is an UNBIASED way of talking about something?

Yes. When we inform somebody of something it can be unbiased if we tell it like it is.

As soon as you talk, you talk from a certain POV, and once you talk from a POV, it is not absolute.

Not necessarily.

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.

No. Surrendering yourself means you totally accept it for what it is without question. When you watch a film, the best way to understand it is to accept it for what it is without questioning the directors intentions. Once you understand it, then you can question it.

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?

Hopefully you will realise in due course of time, by way of understanding.

"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.

You must try and understand what these words mean and how they fit into the context of a scripture. You will find that words are used carefully and honestly in holy scriptures, they are not mere embellishment.

Probably, that's the essence of religion: to name something in a certain way, and call this name-giving relation absolute.

The essence of religion is God.

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.

All religions say that the essense of our being is spirit/soul, and in order to realise this we must call upon God by reciting His Holy name, as His name is non-different from Himself. The purpose of this is to remember God always, even at the time of death. This is the point of all religions.

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?

If practiced sincerly under the guidance of a spiritual master (unalloyed devotee of God), then they are all right. The different religions are for different types of consciousness, some advanced, some not so advanced. A bit like the education system in the developed world. The point is always toremember God, by calling out His names.

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.

Why does that make it flawed? The proof is there, your body is constantly changing, yet you remain the same person. Once the body has run its course and stops permanently, why should you the person who has remained unchanged by natural causes, all of a sudden cease to be?

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

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 depends on you, there are no hard and fast rules. The trouble with this Godless, atheistic society, is that it breaks down your human potential into mere natural mechanisms, leaving confusion in its wake. Learn to trust your own instincts, you have them for a reason.

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.

We are endowed with human intelligence, and we have the power of discrimination. There always comes a time when you have to make decisions where nobody can help you. Understanding something is one of those times.

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.

I just assumed you were more inclined that way, i apologise.

That is just absurd and disgusting!!! Getting closer to animal intelligence???

The animals are preoccupied with eating, sleeping, sex life and defending, they do not bother with self-realisation, or enquiring about God, this is basic intelligence. The human anmal, also has these occupations, but also has the ability to enquire about God or things higher than just eating, sleeping, mating and defending, hence his intelligence is more advanced. Once we lose the capacity of such high enquiry, we become no better than animals in that our whole occupation in life would be only to improve the quality of the basic needs.

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.

This is the result of humans using their intelligence in animalistic pursuits.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

any[/i] text to be considered holy. (meaning that sure other people may call it holy, but if you do, why)

Please present your case or point of discussion.
*************
M*W: There is no problem in calling any text "holy." All you need is a hole-puncher--voila! It's a holy book!

 

[DoctorNO]

And how about it if you learned that Newton actually stole the work from other unknown sources....That's the truth... Would you still consider him as one of the greatest scientists of all time??? And how would that revelation that the work was stolen affect the merit of the work? I would imagine that work would still be categorized as the greatest work of all time regardless of the authorship.

Depends on how much he "stole". If all his breakthroughs came from stolen material then given that the sources were unknown he would only be recognized for “preserving” those earlier breakthroughs from unknown people. If some of his breakthroughs were stolen and some were from his own then he would still be recognized as a great scientist. But not as much as he had in our reality.

You are very reasonable man, so I'm sure you'll agree with me that newton is not important at all and we should be discussing purely laws of motion regardless of where they came from even if they fell from the sky, got inspired by an angel, stolen from pirates, compiled from ancient scriptures, ect....Who cares...right??

Exactly. But I don’t see how those examples are synonymous to Mohammad’s situation.

You see some of his stories were similar to those contained in the Torah, although of a version that is quite different in certain areas - like the sacrifice of Abraham. Some talked about Jesus although also a little different from the Gospels. And some of his revelations were quite unique. Regardless of the kind of person he was there was still no evidence as to the truthfulness in these claims. None then, and none now. Some people genuinely believed him out of pure trust & faith alone.

But can you really blame the rest of the people who chose not to trust his baseless & unproven claims? Why should people believe that Mohammad’s version of God was truer than their ancestral versions of God? Why should Christians just believe mohammed and stop their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity?

What makes Newton's work scientific is the equivalent of what makes the Quran holly? You have to understand science to classify or declassify scientific work and you must understand holly to do the same with scriptures.

I understand science. But I still cant fathom on what makes the Quran holy. And you said I have to understand “holy”. Can you explain how you understand “holy”?

 

[water]

Flores,

Rosie Baby,

Damn it, I've been waiting for almost 300 posts for someone to call me something else but Rosa! Hehe ... You bastard.

Everything you have been saying so far is in perfect alignment with my conclusion that you ignore death. And before you yell and scream, consider defining death to me....DO it quickly, if you really have not been ignoring the very real matter, then I would expect to hear an awesome philosophy that you uphold dear about this issue.

Yes, I did not define death. And you know why? Because I am not so vain as to think that I can define something that I think is way out of the league of being possible to define by logical reason. Definitions, I believe, can be made only by logical reason, about things that are in the system that logical reason can observe. Death doesn't seem to be in that system.

Give me some credit, damn you. Just because someone doesn't think the way you do, that doesn't mean that they are miserable freaks, afraid of death and life, not having a clue.
You need to learn some respect.




Jan Ardena,

“Because it is *economically more feasible*. ”
How so?

It just is, according to the calculations of the agriculture scientists, that's what they say; this is why they use GM's.

Food is about life, we basically eat to survive and have been eating natural foodstuffs since the begining of our existence. Why now is organic food an issue to point where we have to try and improve on it?

Because growing naturals is not as cheap as growing GM's. The world is about money, or at least it *acts* that way. So much food needs to be produced today, that naturals are too expensive, and they earn too little.

“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. "?? ”
Because that is how you create music.

How are you supposed to know that EVERYONE creates music this way?

“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."?? ”
How else could he have created such masterpieces?

Who knows?! Just because we consider them masterpieces doesn't mean that we also know how they came to be.

“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. ”
Then ask them to create music without their own expression and see what happens.

We can presume that it is always an expression of one kind or another. But how this expression is actually arranged, is another thing. And I don't think that we can have insight into the actual creative process. We can make logical *speculations* about it, but that's it.

Nobody is saying you cannot do as you wish, but knowing their terminology is not essential in discussing a piece of music.

It is essential, if I wish to discuss it on a PROFESSIONAL level. We are not talking about the "popular" way to discuss music: "That symphony ... is just so powerful ... so bewildering ..." That's just pathetic amazement.

"Do you think that there is an UNBIASED way of talking about something?"
Yes. When we inform somebody of something it can be unbiased if we tell it like it is.
And
“As soon as you talk, you talk from a certain POV, and once you talk from a POV, it is not absolute. ”
Not necessarily.

This is where we greatly differ, and a lot of short circuits in our communication are due to this basic difference in our ways of thinking. I don't claim to know things "as they are", and I therefore also cannot tell something "like it is". I can only give assertions that I think are *closest* to what I think.

“Probably, that's the essence of religion: to name something in a certain way, and call this name-giving relation absolute. ”
The essence of religion is God.

Pattern: the essence of religion: to name something in a certain way, and call this name-giving relation absolute.
You filling that pattern with an example: The essence of religion is God.

If practiced sincerly under the guidance of a spiritual master (unalloyed devotee of God), then they are all right. The different religions are for different types of consciousness, some advanced, some not so advanced. A bit like the education system in the developed world. The point is always toremember God, by calling out His names.

And WHO makes the hierarchy of which religion is for the more advanced, and which one is for the less advanced?
And WHICH ONE of these religions states that we must always remember God by calling out His names? And who says which are God's names and which aren't?

Why does that make it flawed? The proof is there, your body is constantly changing, yet you remain the same person. Once the body has run its course and stops permanently, why should you the person who has remained unchanged by natural causes, all of a sudden cease to be?

The "trick" is that what actually is permanent is the mere feeling that you have a self. That self can be realized in many different ways over time: once you consider yourself to be a Christian, some other time to be a wife, ... but what pertains is that you feel that you have a self.

Do you know the story of the ship Argo? It can be used as a metaphor for the permanence of self in a person.

Jason and the Argonauts went to find the Golden Fliece, and they sailed in the ship called Argo. It was a long voyage, and along the way, parts of the ship got worn and used, so they had to be replaced. In time, all parts of the ship, all the rows, masts, sails, boards, ... were replaced, not one was the same as at the time when the ship started the voyage. But in the end, the ship had the same shape and the same name as in the beginning -- identity was preserved.

In this metaphor, the name of the ship and its shape are the idea of self that is preserved. While the boards, the rows, the masts and all that was replaced stand for the changes in our body AND the changes in our beliefs, values, ideas.

From how I understand your platform, all that gets changed and replaced are cells of the body -- while the "personality" remains intact?

It depends on you, there are no hard and fast rules. The trouble with this Godless, atheistic society, is that it breaks down your human potential into mere natural mechanisms, leaving confusion in its wake.

I am not confused, I don't feel confused. Maybe you *perceive* me as confused -- but that doesn't mean that I *am* confused.

Learn to trust your own instincts, you have them for a reason.

Yes, my INSTINCTS! Do you think that what my instincts are telling me is not right? Or that I cannot listen to my instincts? You obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't say "Hopefully you will realise in due course of time, by way of understanding."
What makes you think that your beliefs are more true than mine?
I do have a [God or something like that], it just doesn't have a name, neither is it defined. It is there, and that's all. And this is all that I need. I don't need words for my [God or something like that]. And I am happy with it, believe it or not.

The animals are preoccupied with eating, sleeping, sex life and defending, they do not bother with self-realisation, or enquiring about God, this is basic intelligence.

You do not see into an animal's head, you don't know what an animal thinks, neither do I. How can you be so sure that they are only what they appear to be to you?!

The human anmal, also has these occupations, but also has the ability to enquire about God or things higher than just eating, sleeping, mating and defending, hence his intelligence is more advanced. Once we lose the capacity of such high enquiry, we become no better than animals in that our whole occupation in life would be only to improve the quality of the basic needs.

While I see where you are coming from, and agree that modern life is largely about improving the quality of basic needs, I strongly resent any comparison with animals.

 

[yozzy]

DoctorNO -
Someone (the dean of arabic literature) said he would gladly write a better book, Well i dont even dobt his ability, he is the dean

Anyway, Men of a religious organization said it was not a sin to kill him, soon after there were attempts ending with one that put a knife in his back !

Is that how you take the challenge ?

Well if you tell people to TRY, give them the chance to try !