What is this obsession with the "heart"?

[tonyrey]

With reference to the heart, I believe someone mentioned the Valentine card that people receive. And it is an expression of someone’s feelings and care for the other person.

A mother holding her child in her arms often gives it a kiss which is an expression of her love and care.

I could go on but it all basically is saying “I love you” and this comes from the heart, and the mind which understands relationships.

An expression of love to another may not seem to be much but it really is appreciated. The child who holds up a little violet to his mother and says I love you mommy, means so much to that mom.

Another expression is “love makes the world go round.”

Now it is true that there are different forms of love as well as different strengths of love. But no matter what form or strength it takes it is real and people know it and look for it. It is something that science cannot measure or really explain … but there it is.

Jesus’ heart was pierced with a spear on the cross by the Centurion from which came out water and blood. This is the moment we hold dear for it was coming from his heart, giving all he had to us.

Indeed. What more could Jesus have done for us?

 

[GEddie]

Even as the devil’s advocate I cannot think of any way of disproving that statement.

I’m not sure TR.

“Reality” includes a lot more than our human life, for example the larger physical and biological worlds, which aren’t much influenced by the gooey feelings of human beings.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Maddie26]

What is your problem?

My main problem was that you were rude.

 

[Solmyr]

The truth is God does care about you. And he has not given up on you.

Unfortunately he did not express this love in any shape or form I could recognize.

With reference to the heart, I believe someone mentioned the Valentine card that people receive. And it is an expression of someone’s feelings and care for the other person.

I am aware of this metaphor. Of course it is way overused. But the problem is that it is irrelevant in a philosophical discussion. When I ask for evidence for God’s existence and instead of an answer I am told that my heart is not open, and that is why God is “unable” to communicate with me, then all I get is frustration.

There is no place for emotions in a question of metaphysics. Only “cold”, hard logic.

Another expression is “love makes the world go round.”

In the play “Cabaret” there is a song: “MONEY makes the world go round” - which is much more precise. You can see it here: youtube.com/watch?v=PIAXG_QcQNU

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure TR.

“Reality” includes a lot more than our human life, for example the larger physical and biological worlds, which aren’t much influenced by the gooey feelings of human beings.

ICXC NIKA.

I think the best response is not “gooey” but literally excruciating. What more could Jesus have done for us?

 

[tonyrey]

Unfortunately he did not express this love in any shape or form I could recognize.

Not even on the Cross?

 

[Solmyr]

Not even on the Cross?

Of course not. God could have forgiven our trespasses unconditionally. There was no LOGICAL necessity for the crucifixion. If the ONLY way to help others is to perform some kind of sacrifice, then that sacrifice would be accepted as a sign of “love”. But since there was no LOGICAL necessity, it was not the sign of anything. Not to mention that there was no “death” in the crucifixion, only a 3 days worth of inconvenience.

Of course I was talking about HERE and NOW. There is no sign of God’s alleged “love” for us. No help to feed the needy, no interference to protect the innocent, no healing for the sick, no comfort for the grieving… there is NOTHING.

I can understand that for some people the concept of an indifferent “creator” seems logical. I don’t share it, but at least it is not illogical. But the concept of a “loving” and “caring” God is totally irrational.

 

[Vico]

It is all over the place.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God”.
“Your heart is closed to God”.
“You must open your heart to God”.
“If you don’t open your heart to God, your prayers will not be answered”…

and so on, ad nauseam.

What is this obsession? I only know one metaphor for the “heart”, and it is emotion. What does “emotion” have to with God’s alleged existence? I have my MIND open to the possibility that God exists. This means that I am open to logical and rational arguments. If the arguments would be sufficient, I would accept them. That is all I can offer. But the “apologists” demand something further, they want me to “open my heart to God”? What the heck do they mean?

There is the material, the metaphorical, and the symbolic sense of the word heart. Devotion is based entirely upon the symbolism of the heart. The theological virtue of love has its seat in the human will. The act of love is the love of benevolence and friendship, which is reciprocal between God and man. “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost” – Romans 5:5

 

[Solmyr]

There is the material, the metaphorical, and the symbolic sense of the word heart. Devotion is based entirely upon the symbolism of the heart. The theological virtue of love has its seat in the human will. The act of love is the love of benevolence and friendship, which is reciprocal between God and man. “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost” – Romans 5:5

In a philosophical discussion ONLY the literal usage is acceptable. To use the others only serves as a distraction and obfuscation.

 

[Vico]

In a philosophical discussion ONLY the literal usage is acceptable. To use the others only serves as a distraction and obfuscation.

So only the meaning of the vital organ that pumps blood and is highly innervated?

Going back to the first post, these uses that you mention are not philosophical, so do you not want to consider their meanings?

“The fool in his heart says there is no God”.
“Your heart is closed to God”.
“You must open your heart to God”.
“If you don’t open your heart to God, your prayers will not be answered”…

 

[Solmyr]

So only the meaning of the vital organ that pumps blood and is highly innervated?

Going back to the first post, these uses that you mention are not philosophical, so do you not want to consider their meanings?

“The fool in his heart says there is no God”.
“Your heart is closed to God”.
“You must open your heart to God”.
“If you don’t open your heart to God, your prayers will not be answered”…

I brought them up as examples of how NOT to argue.

 

[Vico]

I brought them up as examples of how NOT to argue.

Ok, but this is what you asked, so you can understand why I posted what I did: “they want me to “open my heart to God”? What the heck do they mean?”

 

[adamhovey1988]

It is all over the place.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God”.
“Your heart is closed to God”.
“You must open your heart to God”.
“If you don’t open your heart to God, your prayers will not be answered”…

and so on, ad nauseam.

What is this obsession? I only know one metaphor for the “heart”, and it is emotion. What does “emotion” have to with God’s alleged existence? I have my MIND open to the possibility that God exists. This means that I am open to logical and rational arguments. If the arguments would be sufficient, I would accept them. That is all I can offer. But the “apologists” demand something further, they want me to “open my heart to God”? What the heck do they mean?

“The Heart is deceitful is above all things”-Jeremiah 17:9

 

[tonyrey]

Of course not. God could have forgiven our trespasses unconditionally.

God does forgive our trespasses unconditionally but our vices incur their own punishment spiritually, psychologically and socially. It doesn’t pay to have a criminal mentality and regard ourselves as superior to everyone else in our ability to amass wealth and power by any means fair or foul.

There was no LOGICAL necessity for the crucifixion. If the ONLY way to help others is to perform some kind of sacrifice, then that sacrifice would be accepted as a sign of “love”. But since there was no LOGICAL necessity, it was not the sign of anything.

Life is not ruled by logic but by love. If you do only what is necessary for other people you’re not worth knowing. If you’re never prepared to sacrifice your life for anyone else you demonstrate your utter selfishness. Even animals are superior in that respect…

Not to mention that there was no “death” in the crucifixion, only a 3 days worth of inconvenience.

You grossly underestimate having not only a life-long prospect of being scourged and nailed to a cross but also an actual experience you have never had to endure. It is very easy to make extravagant claims but to justify them is an entirely different matter.

Of course I was talking about HERE and NOW. There is no sign of God’s alleged “love” for us. No help to feed the needy, no interference to protect the innocent, no healing for the sick, no comfort for the grieving… there is NOTHING.

You are assuming there is no evidence whatsoever for miracles even though throughout history and throughout the world there have been countless inexplicable cases of survival and recoveries from illness. To attribute all of them to ignorance, superstition and wishful thinking is not only unscientific but also a clear case of self-destructive scepticism! What facts do you regard as unassailable?

I can understand that for some people the concept of an indifferent “creator” seems logical. I don’t share it, but at least it is not illogical. But the concept of a “loving” and “caring” God is totally irrational.

It is equally facile to claim that no one is really “loving” and “caring” because we are all motivated by an urge to survive regardless of what happens to everyone else. In a Godless universe there is no reason to believe intangibles like love, freedom and justice even exist…The only problem - which of course is only a minor one for the sceptic - is that if truth doesn’t exist nothing makes sense. Logical necessity demands that absurdity is the name of the game! Why introduce “logical necessity” into a totally irrational state of affairs? You’re getting something for nothing - which is hardly credible, feasible - or logical…

 

[Solmyr]

God does forgive our trespasses unconditionally but our vices incur their own punishment spiritually, psychologically and socially.

What does the cross have to do with this?

Life is not ruled by logic but by love.

Love without logic is nonsense. They are both necessary. But to endure a hardship, torture or even death - if it is NOT necessary is not the sign of “love”. Take a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. If that would be the ONLY way to save them, it would be a sign of love (or death wish?). But if he knew that he could grab the grenade, and throw it away so no one would be hurt, then the “sacrifice” would be a sign of idiocy, not love.

You grossly underestimate having not only a life-long prospect of being scourged and nailed to a cross but also an actual experience you have never had to endure.

If I would be a God, I would not care. A temporary inconvenience (“a bad hair day”?) is NOT death.

You are assuming there is no evidence whatsoever for miracles

No, YOU are assuming that there were miracles. But even if there WERE miracles, there are no “miraculous” interventions HERE and NOW. How many dying infants were saved “miraculously” in Africa yesterday? How many tons of “manna” dropped from the sky to alleviate hunger last year? The buzzword is “HERE and NOW”… not some alleged event in the distant past.

It is equally facile to claim that no one is really “loving” and “caring” because we are all motivated by an urge to survive regardless of what happens to everyone else.

Is God motivated by the urge to survive? I am not talking about human love and caring. There is sufficient evidence for those. I am asking about the signs of God’s love and caring HERE and NOW - for which there is NO evidence at all.

 

[tonyrey]

God does

We need to be liberated from evil: our ignorance, weakness, selfishness and indifference to the suffering of others.

Life is not ruled by logic but by love.

Love without logic is nonsense. They are both necessary. But to endure a hardship, torture or even death - if it is NOT necessary is not the sign of “love”.
Take a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. If that would be the ONLY way to save them, it would be a sign of love (or death wish?). But if he knew that he could grab the grenade, and throw it away so no one would be hurt, then the “sacrifice” would be a sign of idiocy, not love.

I agree. Both are necessary but logic alone is not enough. Since we’re not infallible we should be guided by love where there is doubt. Even if we make a mistake at least we had the right intention.

You grossly underestimate having not only a life-long prospect of being scourged and nailed to a cross but also an actual experience you have never had to endure.

• If I would be a God, I would not care. A temporary inconvenience (“a bad hair day”?) is NOT death.

Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin. In this world He didn’t have divine knowledge and suffered accordingly.

You are assuming there is no evidence whatsoever for miracles

No, YOU are assuming that there were miracles. But even if there WERE miracles, there are no “miraculous” interventions HERE and NOW. How many dying infants were saved “miraculously” in Africa yesterday? How many tons of “manna” dropped from the sky to alleviate hunger last year? The buzzword is “HERE and NOW”… not some alleged event in the distant past.

How do you** know** there are **never **any miracles? It seems rather presumptuous to make such a generalisation about every single event in this world. Even human intervention is miraculous if it occurs against all the odds. God relies on us as well as suspending natural laws.

It is equally facile to claim that no one is really “loving” and “caring” because we are all motivated by an urge to survive regardless of what happens to everyone else.

Is God motivated by the urge to survive? I am not talking about human love and caring. There is sufficient evidence for those. I am asking about the signs of God’s love and caring HERE and NOW - for which there is NO evidence at all.

There have been many inexplicable cases of survival against all the odds in earthquakes and other disasters as well as answers to prayer for people who are incurably sick and even on the verge of death. Total scepticism is a form of unjustified dogmatism akin to terrorism. It makes life seem far worse than it really is. Negativity is an unbalanced view of reality and leads to Schopenhauer’s pessimism - that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet…

.

 

[Solmyr]

We need to be liberated from evil: our ignorance, weakness, selfishness and indifference to the suffering of others.

Did the “cross” achieve that?

I agree. Both are necessary but logic alone is not enough. As we’re not infallible where there is doubt we should be guided by love. Even if we make a mistake at least we had the right intention.

Fine, but that is not the question. We are talking about a sacrifice which is NOT logically necessary, like the soldier who did not throw away that grenade, rather took the blast to protect his comrades. A soldier who chooses to sacrifice himself instead of simply saving both himself and his comrades is acting irrationally. This is the major question. Stick to it, please.

Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin. He didn’t have divine knowledge on earth.

How would you KNOW that? That is not the official view.

How do you** know** there are **never **any miracles? It seems rather presumptuous to make such a generalisation about every single event in this world. Even human intervention is miraculous if it occurs against all the odds.

How many infants got cured of dysentery and malaria and diphtheria and other diseases without any medical intervention in Africa last month? The ball is in your court. Let me have the number. And even if you would find a few, compare that number to the thousands who die every day. What is the percentage? The parents of the dead prayed just as fervently as the parents of the few survivors - if any.

God relies on us as well as mental and physical phenomena.

Pretty serious condemnation of God. Only a very egotistical person would say: “hey, why should I help? There are others, let them do the helping!”

There have been many inexplicable cases of survival against all the odds in earthquakes and other disasters as well as answers to prayer for people who are incurably sick and even on the verge of death. Total scepticism is a form of unjustified dogmatism akin to terrorism. Negativity is an unbalanced view of reality…

Many? How many? How many compared to the ones who did not make it? When a few hundred people perish in an airplane accident, and one child “only” gets seriously hurt, the relatives of the survivor love to proclaim: “A miracle! Praise God for saving our child!”. Fortunately for them the relatives of the dead ones are not around when this “praise” is uttered. Some might take exception to this, and kick the teeth out of this person. And they would be right.

 

[Vico]

Of course not. God could have forgiven our trespasses unconditionally. There was no LOGICAL necessity for the crucifixion. If the ONLY way to help others is to perform some kind of sacrifice, then that sacrifice would be accepted as a sign of “love”. But since there was no LOGICAL necessity, it was not the sign of anything. Not to mention that there was no “death” in the crucifixion, only a 3 days worth of inconvenience.

Of course I was talking about HERE and NOW. There is no sign of God’s alleged “love” for us. No help to feed the needy, no interference to protect the innocent, no healing for the sick, no comfort for the grieving… there is NOTHING.

I can understand that for some people the concept of an indifferent “creator” seems logical. I don’t share it, but at least it is not illogical. But the concept of a “loving” and “caring” God is totally irrational.

There was the death of the body of Christ followed by the glorious Resurrection.

God is loving because He sent His Word to bring us Truth and His Spirit to make us holy.

Logically there had to be free will or there could be no expression of love by angels and men. Since there was sin as a result of free will God had to have a plan to rescue mankind from it.

 

[tonyrey]

We need to be liberated from evil: our ignorance, weakness, selfishness and indifference to the suffering of others.

It certainly did. The example and precepts of Jesus have transformed the world. Not only is Christianity the largest religion in the world with more than 2.4 billion believers His teaching that we all have a heavenly Father is the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Both are necessary but logic alone is not enough. As we’re not infallible where there is doubt we should be guided by love. Even if we make a mistake at least we had the right intention.

Fine, but that is not the question. We are talking about a sacrifice which is NOT logically necessary, like the soldier who did not throw away that grenade, rather took the blast to protect his comrades. A soldier who chooses to sacrifice himself instead of simply saving both himself and his comrades is acting irrationally. This is the major question. Stick to it, please.

Your analogy is flawed because Jesus liberated us from moral evil.

Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin. He didn’t have divine knowledge on earth.

How would you KNOW that? That is not the official view.

The Church’s teaching is that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin - based on St Paul’s statement:

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”

Hebrews 4:15

How do you** know**

there are **never **any miracles? It seems rather presumptuous to make such a generalisation about every single event in this world. Even human intervention is miraculous if it occurs against all the odds.How many infants got cured of dysentery and malaria and diphtheria and other diseases without any medical intervention in Africa last month? The ball is in your court. Let me have the number. And even if you would find a few, compare that number to the thousands who die every day. What is the percentage? The parents of the dead prayed just as fervently as the parents of the few survivors - if any.

The issue is not the percentage but whether miracles ever occur. If they were abundant it would be obvious that a benevolent Power exists…

God relies on us as well as mental and physical phenomena.

Pretty serious condemnation of God. Only a very egotistical person would say: “hey, why should I help? There are others, let them do the helping!”

We’re not in this world to leave everything to God and shirk our obligations…

There have been many inexplicable cases of survival against all the odds in earthquakes and other disasters as well as answers to prayer for people who are incurably sick and even on the verge of death. Total scepticism is a form of unjustified dogmatism akin to terrorism. Negativity is an unbalanced view of reality…

Many? How many? How many compared to the ones who did not make it? When a few hundred people perish in an airplane accident, and one child “only” gets seriously hurt, the relatives of the survivor love to proclaim: “A miracle! Praise God for saving our child!”. Fortunately for them the relatives of the dead ones are not around when this “praise” is uttered. Some might take exception to this, and kick the teeth out of this person. And they would be right. Did the “cross” achieve that?

Your emotive language is irrational. Most people realise miracles are necessarily rare. They understand that God is not a slot machine…

The facts you have ignored are unassailable:

There have been many inexplicable cases of survival against all the odds in earthquakes and other disasters as well as answers to prayer for people who are incurably sick and even on the verge of death. Total scepticism is a form of unjustified dogmatism akin to terrorism. It makes life seem far worse than it really is. Negativity is an unbalanced view of reality and leads to Schopenhauer’s pessimism - that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet…

Do you agree with him? If not why not?

 

[Solmyr]

It certainly did. The example and precepts of Jesus have transformed the world. Not only is Christianity the largest religion in the world with more than 2.4 billion believers His teaching that we all have a heavenly Father is the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

The same concepts have been around for millennia before the “cross”. Even the famous “golden rule” was borrowed from other ancient cultures. There is nothing “divine” about it.

Your analogy is flawed because Jesus liberated us from moral evil.

I see no decrease in moral evil. But even if there would have been a SIGNIFICANT decrease, you would need to prove that it was DUE to the crucifixion. The analogy simply shows that only a logically necessary self-sacrifice would be a sign of love.

The issue is not the percentage but whether miracles ever occur. If they were abundant it would be obvious that a benevolent Power exists…

Which would be in the best interest of everyone. But you need to substantiate that miracles actually happen, which would require omniscience on your part. You are not in the position to declare: “this event X could NOT have happened due to natural causes - because I/we know ALL the laws of nature”.