|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aksel, Ankersen
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 272
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mrcommonsensenow wrote: |
Why does God have a need for prophets in the first place? |
Prophets are exceptionally enlightened human beings, who spread the religious truths they perceive onto the rest of us. Other humans may want or need prophets - God doesn't need prophets, rather the other way around.
CuteCoot actually gave the best answer, I think.
_________________
"your pit of the hell fire will be reserved for you, and on that day, myself and your parents will be laughing at you, It's Showtime"
-Ahmed Bahgat to a schoolgirl who left Islam |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CuteCoot
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aksel, Ankersen wrote: |
| CuteCoot actually gave the best answer, I think. |
Thanks!  Glad you liked it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sword_of_truth
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 255
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Commonsensenow has a good point, here.
I'm not going to say that the fact that God talks to one person at a time PROVES anything. However, it does create problems.
Specifically, if God can only talk to one person at a time, why would we have any reason to believe that that person's brain isn't actually the thing talking to him, instead of God? And that, after all is the default explanation, in the absence of proof. Of course, in the case of a many-person prophethood, if they were in contact with each other, we could still consider the possibility of conscious fraud, but unconscious fraud would be much less likely. If prophets living at the same time, but clearly out of contact with each other received the very same message, the situation would be even better, but then we would still have the problem of God giving us a history test for salvation.
Basically, the problem here is just that God doesn't want to give anyone any real evidence. By creating mental disorders, like schizophrenia or TLE where people receive visions, and talking to only one person at a time, God provides a possible naturalistic explanation for prophecy, making it harder to believe in his word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CuteCoot
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sword_of_truth wrote: |
| I'm not going to say that the fact that God talks to one person at a time PROVES anything. However, it does create problems. |
It's a "fact" now, is it? Where's your "evidence" that "proves" that God talks ONLY to one person at a time? According to my own understanding of God, that's not the case at all.
For example, Handel said this of his writing of the Messiah:
| Handel wrote: |
| I did think I did see all Heaven before me and the great God himself. |
Many a member of the audience listening to the Messiah has a similar sense of being in God's presence and hearing His word. I certainly have experienced this. So, to my mind, when a great religious work of art is being presented like that, God is indeed "talking" to many people at the one time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrcommonsensenow
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 1711
Location: Earth
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You make good points sword_of_truth but in the interest of discussion, lets assume that God does communicate with some people. What good has come of it? When we take a look at mankinds savage history, the most sensible conclusion one could be left with is that God sees humans as little more than bacteria in a Petri dish or his not nearly as infallible as he says he is.
If there’s such a thing as a creator, it seems to me it would be better for everyone if theist did not implicate him with the actions of humans by claming direct intervention from him.
_________________
It is not logical to believe that the same God who has allegedly endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sword_of_truth
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 255
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
sword_of_truth wrote:
I'm not going to say that the fact that God talks to one person at a time PROVES anything. However, it does create problems.
It's a "fact" now, is it? Where's your "evidence" that "proves" that God talks ONLY to one person at a time? According to my own understanding of God, that's not the case at all. |
Muhammed claims that, for example. If you don't claim that, then, yes, your claim is not subject to my objection. Then, you just have to deal with my other objections that God is giving us a history test, etc.
| Quote: |
For example, Handel said this of his writing of the Messiah:
Handel wrote:
I did think I did see all Heaven before me and the great God himself.
Many a member of the audience listening to the Messiah has a similar sense of being in God's presence and hearing His word. I certainly have experienced this. So, to my mind, when a great religious work of art is being presented like that, God is indeed "talking" to many people at the one time. |
No reason to believe it's God, even if you believe in God. There are commonalities that all humans have.
If you think it's God, fine, but it's just faith, not evidence, and furthermore, there ought to be a satisfactory neuralogical explanation. So, I'm certainly not going to believe you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CuteCoot
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wrote: |
| Where's your "evidence" that "proves" that God talks ONLY to one person at a time? |
| sword_of_truth wrote: |
| Muhammed claims that, for example. |
Where did he claim that? And even if he did, where is the relevance in that? It's just one person's opinion, isn't it?
| Quote: |
| If you don't claim that, then, yes, your claim is not subject to my objection. Then, you just have to deal with my other objections that God is giving us a history test, etc. |
I don't "have to" deal with anything on a board like this. I can offer my view, here and there, in case anyone is interested in it. And I can keep my view to myself.
| Quote: |
| No reason to believe it's God, even if you believe in God. ... So, I'm certainly not going to believe you. |
And nor do you "have to" do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sword_of_truth
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 255
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Where did he claim that? And even if he did, where is the relevance in that? It's just one person's opinion, isn't it? |
If you think Muhammed would support the conclusion that the Quran was revealed to someone other than himself, you don't know very much about Islam.
The relevance is that his opinion is supposedly backed up by "Allah".
We can prove this by noting that Muhammed is supposed to be the final messenger. If he was the final messenger, then, at least, at the very end of his life, he, alone, must have been recieving revelations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CuteCoot
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sword_of_truth wrote: |
| If you think Muhammed would support the conclusion that the Quran was revealed to someone other than himself, you don't know very much about Islam. |
We were discussing whether God "talks" to one person at a time, not whether Allah revealed the Quran to Mohammad alone.
| Quote: |
| The relevance is that his opinion is supposedly backed up by "Allah". |
I can't see that it's his opinion at all; I'm not aware of where "Allah" has backed him up on this or any similar claim; and I don't see the relevance of any of this in establishing the "fact" that God speaks only to one person at a time.
| Quote: |
| We can prove this by noting that Muhammed is supposed to be the final messenger. If he was the final messenger, then, at least, at the very end of his life, he, alone, must have been recieving revelations. |
Clearly you and I have different understandings and different standards as regards "proof".
I also understand "final" in an archetypal ("eternal" or time independent) sense rather than in a temporal (chronological or strictly historical) sense. Plenty of people with special talents for communicating with and about God can have come after Mohammad in time without adding anything substantial to his "final" or completed message. This is where the various saints and mystics of Islam fit in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sword_of_truth
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 255
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
sword_of_truth wrote:
If you think Muhammed would support the conclusion that the Quran was revealed to someone other than himself, you don't know very much about Islam.
We were discussing whether God "talks" to one person at a time, not whether Allah revealed the Quran to Mohammad alone. |
Yes, but this would be one instance where God does talk to Muhammed alone. That's precisely what is meant by "talking to one person at a time". This is what I was trying to get at. If Allah revealed the Quran ONLY to Muhammed, then how do we know that it wasn't just his mind talking to him?
| Quote: |
Quote:
The relevance is that his opinion is supposedly backed up by "Allah".
I can't see that it's his opinion at all; I'm not aware of where "Allah" has backed him up on this or any similar claim; and I don't see the relevance of any of this in establishing the "fact" that God speaks only to one person at a time.
Quote:
We can prove this by noting that Muhammed is supposed to be the final messenger. If he was the final messenger, then, at least, at the very end of his life, he, alone, must have been recieving revelations.
Clearly you and I have different understandings and different standards as regards "proof". |
What I was claiming to prove was just that Islam says Muhammed was alone in receiving revelations at the end of his life, at least. I didn't want to try to give full justification reguarding the whole Quran. But, I think that this is something that's commonly agreed on by muslims. It doesn't have to be fact. The point concerns what people believe, not what actually happened.
| Quote: |
| I also understand "final" in an archetypal ("eternal" or time independent) sense rather than in a temporal (chronological or strictly historical) sense. Plenty of people with special talents for communicating with and about God can have come after Mohammad in time without adding anything substantial to his "final" or completed message. This is where the various saints and mystics of Islam fit in. |
Well, again, that's not what muslims typically believe. They typically believe that Muhammed was the last person that God talked to. If Allah addressed them directly, that would make them like prophets, and Muhammed was supposed to be the last one of those. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CuteCoot
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sword_of_truth wrote: |
| If Allah revealed the Quran ONLY to Muhammed, then how do we know that it wasn't just his mind talking to him? |
We don't. And further, "his mind talking to him" is about as explanatory as "Allah talking to him". And even further, an instance of someone talking alone with God is no "proof" that God only communicates to people when they're on their own. As I've said earlier, if many people in an audience listening to Handel's Messiah feel the presence of God and have a sense of hearing God's word, then this is an instance of God communicating with several people at the one time. An instance with as much and as little validity as the one in which Allah talked to Mohammad alone.
| Quote: |
| What I was claiming to prove was just that Islam says Muhammed was alone in receiving revelations at the end of his life, at least. I didn't want to try to give full justification reguarding the whole Quran. But, I think that this is something that's commonly agreed on by muslims. It doesn't have to be fact. The point concerns what people believe, not what actually happened. |
I think a confusion arises as to what is meant by "Mohammad was alone in receiving revelations". It can mean he was alone at the time that he was talking with God and it can mean he was alone in having this experience of talking with God.
The statement of yours that I originally challenged was as follows:
| Quote: |
| I'm not going to say that the fact that God talks to one person at a time PROVES anything. |
Clearly you are asserting as a "fact" that God [only ever] talks to one person at a time. You were not asserting that Mohammad (or anyone else) was the only person ever to have talked with God.
In either case, what Muslims believe about Mohammad is simply what they believe. In no way does it establish any "fact" apart from the fact of that belief.
| Quote: |
| Well, again, that's not what muslims typically believe. They typically believe that Muhammed was the last person that God talked to. If Allah addressed them directly, that would make them like prophets, and Muhammed was supposed to be the last one of those. |
I am aware of this mainstream literalist view. However it is not thereby a correct view and it has no bearing on the "fact" you asserted and which I challenged.
It is my view - and it is not a "fact" - that anyone at any time can talk with God. Indeed, it is my view - and again definitely not a "fact" - that everyone at every moment cannot help but commune with God. After all, God is present in everything, in every thought, and in every word.
Including every word that you yourself have said or written.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sword_of_truth
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 255
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
sword_of_truth wrote:
If Allah revealed the Quran ONLY to Muhammed, then how do we know that it wasn't just his mind talking to him?
We don't. And further, "his mind talking to him" is about as explanatory as "Allah talking to him". |
I disagree. Minds are things we have sort of seen. Brains. God is something that I haven't seen. Brains are something I have seen and experienced. Big difference.
| Quote: |
| And even further, an instance of someone talking alone with God is no "proof" that God only communicates to people when they're on their own. As I've said earlier, if many people in an audience listening to Handel's Messiah feel the presence of God and have a sense of hearing God's word, then this is an instance of God communicating with several people at the one time. An instance with as much and as little validity as the one in which Allah talked to Mohammad alone. |
Of course. I was only referring to that one instance.
| Quote: |
Quote:
What I was claiming to prove was just that Islam says Muhammed was alone in receiving revelations at the end of his life, at least. I didn't want to try to give full justification reguarding the whole Quran. But, I think that this is something that's commonly agreed on by muslims. It doesn't have to be fact. The point concerns what people believe, not what actually happened.
I think a confusion arises as to what is meant by "Mohammad was alone in receiving revelations". It can mean he was alone at the time that he was talking with God and it can mean he was alone in having this experience of talking with God. |
I meant that the Quran was revealed to Muhammed from God and no one else.
| Quote: |
The statement of yours that I originally challenged was as follows:
Quote:
I'm not going to say that the fact that God talks to one person at a time PROVES anything.
Clearly you are asserting as a "fact" that God [only ever] talks to one person at a time. You were not asserting that Mohammad (or anyone else) was the only person ever to have talked with God. |
Nope. I am not asserting it as a fact. I am saying A implies B doesn't prove anything. I didn't claim that A was true.
| Quote: |
In either case, what Muslims believe about Mohammad is simply what they believe. In no way does it establish any "fact" apart from the fact of that belief.
Quote:
Well, again, that's not what muslims typically believe. They typically believe that Muhammed was the last person that God talked to. If Allah addressed them directly, that would make them like prophets, and Muhammed was supposed to be the last one of those.
I am aware of this mainstream literalist view. However it is not thereby a correct view and it has no bearing on the "fact" you asserted and which I challenged. |
The fact which you ASSUMED I was asserting.
| Quote: |
It is my view - and it is not a "fact" - that anyone at any time can talk with God. Indeed, it is my view - and again definitely not a "fact" - that everyone at every moment cannot help but commune with God. After all, God is present in everything, in every thought, and in every word.
Including every word that you yourself have said or written. |
Well, that would be quite a lucky guess if it was true, since it is rather unsubstantiated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CuteCoot
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sword_of_truth wrote: |
| I disagree. Minds are things we have sort of seen. Brains. God is something that I haven't seen. Brains are something I have seen and experienced. Big difference. |
No, sword of truth, no one has ever "seen" a mind though we all have the experience of our own minds. God is similarly something you don't "see" as a physical object but rather experience the reality of. Because God is all-encompassing, it can be "seen" throughout the whole world just as the mind can be "seen' by looking at a brain.
| Quote: |
| I meant that the Quran was revealed to Muhammed from God and no one else. |
There is still confusion here. Do you mean "from God and from no one else" or "from God and to no one else"?
| Quote: |
| Nope. I am not asserting it as a fact. I am saying A implies B doesn't prove anything. I didn't claim that A was true. |
You referred to it as a "fact" in the context of appearing to agree with MCSN. Furthermore, there are no circumstances in which it could be a fact. It is not the kind of statement the truth of which can be established as factual. It is a fact that some people believe that God talks only to people one-on-one and it is a fact that some people believe that God talks to people in groups as well but it makes no sense to talk of divine communication of any form as a "fact". That's the point I'm trying to make, actually.
| Quote: |
| Well, that would be quite a lucky guess if it was true, since it is rather unsubstantiated. |
If it's true for me, then it's true for me. And that's an end of it. It is not a "fact" that demands to be substantiated or unsubstantiated, that is, true for everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sword_of_truth
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 255
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
sword_of_truth wrote:
I disagree. Minds are things we have sort of seen. Brains. God is something that I haven't seen. Brains are something I have seen and experienced. Big difference.
No, sword of truth, no one has ever "seen" a mind though we all have the experience of our own minds. God is similarly something you don't "see" as a physical object but rather experience the reality of. Because God is all-encompassing, it can be "seen" throughout the whole world just as the mind can be "seen' by looking at a brain. |
It's complicated. But brains are things we have experience with. I have a brain, I have experienced my own mind. So, in some sense, minds are the ONLY things we have seen. I also look at everyone else, and they look just like me. They have brains, too, so it would be quite odd if their brains were not doing the same sort of thing as my own. I have even seen some, at least, in pictures. I don't see God, and I really doubt that anyone else does either. They just have psychological awarenesses which they label as God.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I meant that the Quran was revealed to Muhammed from God and no one else.
There is still confusion here. Do you mean "from God and from no one else" or "from God and to no one else"? |
From God and to no one else.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Nope. I am not asserting it as a fact. I am saying A implies B doesn't prove anything. I didn't claim that A was true.
You referred to it as a "fact" in the context of appearing to agree with MCSN. Furthermore, there are no circumstances in which it could be a fact. It is not the kind of statement the truth of which can be established as factual. It is a fact that some people believe that God talks only to people one-on-one and it is a fact that some people believe that God talks to people in groups as well but it makes no sense to talk of divine communication of any form as a "fact". That's the point I'm trying to make, actually. |
The word "fact" is not important to the argument. I am just saying that IF someone claims to be receiving messages from God, it would be more believable if there were other people receiving exactly the same message. That is all I'm saying. Nothing more.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Well, that would be quite a lucky guess if it was true, since it is rather unsubstantiated.
If it's true for me, then it's true for me. And that's an end of it. It is not a "fact" that demands to be substantiated or unsubstantiated, that is, true for everyone. |
What if it's true for you that cyanide is a good snack? Quite a suicidal philosophy, I think, to brush off reality as inconsequential. Although, you do have a point that this particular thing need not be substantiated. But my point is that there's more to the truth than just who thinks such and such is true. You can't just decide that it would be pleasurable to bang your face in the wall and then expect not to be disappointed by the result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CuteCoot
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sword_of_truth wrote: |
| It's complicated. But brains are things we have experience with. I have a brain, I have experienced my own mind. So, in some sense, minds are the ONLY things we have seen. I also look at everyone else, and they look just like me. They have brains, too, so it would be quite odd if their brains were not doing the same sort of thing as my own. I have even seen some, at least, in pictures. I don't see God, and I really doubt that anyone else does either. They just have psychological awarenesses which they label as God. |
There really isn't all that much difference in our views, more in our use of language. I try to use "fact" for matters verifiable via the senses. So it's a fact that we have brains. Then I prefer to use "reality" for matters verifiable via simple experience. So it's a reality that we have minds for that is our experience. Though we don't "have" minds in the same sense as we "have" brains. Some people "see" visions (essentially hallucinations) that they describe using words like "God" or "divine". Depending on the circumstances surrounding that experience and how effectively the person can communicate their vision it does or does not get to be accepted as a true divine revelation. But it's only ever "true" to those who accept it as such. Jesus and Mohammad are prime examples of people who felt a very direct contact with God and convinced many others that these experiences were not mere hallucinations. If you don't "see" God anywhere, and God is not a reality for you, then that's an end of the matter.
| Quote: |
| From God and to no one else. |
Thank you for clarifying that.
| Quote: |
| The word "fact" is not important to the argument. I am just saying that IF someone claims to be receiving messages from God, it would be more believable if there were other people receiving exactly the same message. That is all I'm saying. Nothing more. |
It's true that people are impressed when there are a lot of followers of a faith. If all those people believe that, then there must be something in it. If you take part in a church congregation then you are among a group of people who are "receiving exactly the same message" ("exactly" at least to the extent that we all see "exactly" the same thing when watching a movie together in a theatre).
Christianity started from one or two people hallucinating a vision of Jesus following his death. Then one or two more people "saw" Him, then at one point quite a large crowd. So a whole religious movement came about, one that is still quite vibrant to this day. Still, this was long ago and you weren't there. You only know about it through books and retellings, so it's not enough for you that more than one person witnessed the risen Christ.
I don't accept as "fact" that Jesus died, stayed dead for three days, then returned to life to spend some more time with his followers before ascending into heaven. I do accept as (plausible historical) "fact" that quite a few people were deeply moved by his death and experienced His presence among them, even to the point of hallucinating his actual bodily person walking and talking among them. It's enough to convince me that He must have been a hell of an impressive person in His own right and to understand how people saw divinity in that.
So I would use the word "fact" about a statement verifiable by the senses but not one containing metaphysical elements in it, such as God or soul or even mind. Still, because people express their experiences in words or music or art, I can through these access their beliefs or visions or understandings. I might not agree with those beliefs but I can accept as a fact that those people hold those beliefs.
I pulled you up because you used the word "fact" in a way that I don't think is helpful.
| Quote: |
| What if it's true for you that cyanide is a good snack? Quite a suicidal philosophy, I think, to brush off reality as inconsequential. Although, you do have a point that this particular thing need not be substantiated. But my point is that there's more to the truth than just who thinks such and such is true. You can't just decide that it would be pleasurable to bang your face in the wall and then expect not to be disappointed by the result. |
The statement "cyanide is a good snack" has a verifiable factual component ("good" as "safe for human consumption") as well as an individual taste component ("good" as in "tastes nice") that might come under your "philosophy" label. We all need some kind of philosophy in life, some general guidance as to how to proceed and we do use our individual "taste" to guide us in selecting things to eat and philosophies to follow. Alcohol is a better example than cyanide as I think it unlikely anyone would enjoy the taste of cyanide. I drink alcohol because I enjoy the taste and the sensations it engenders. However, it is a toxin to the body and in sufficient doses is indeed suicidal.
All faith traditions are like alcohol. You imbibe a little of it and it makes you feel good. It's not until you imbibe a lot of it that you come to realize that it might not be so good for your health. Just as seasoned alcoholics will encourage a relatively inexperienced drinker with "Come on, have another drink and you'll feel better after all" just so does a seasoned religionist insist to a youngster "Come on, try a little harder to understand what God wants of you and to do as He wants, you'll see it'll work in the end". That includes atheists also except that the advice goes "Come one, keep living without God. It might have its ups and downs but you won't fall into any silly deceptions so it's worth it."
I think it would be a good idea if philosophies, religions, psychotherapeutic practices, lifestyle choices, etc, were subject to trial periods. Try this for a year - or ten - with a specific promised result. If the result is achieved you're on the right track. If not, try this other religion or philosophy or therapist or hobby.
Sorry for rambling ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
