What is this obsession with the "heart"?

[tonyrey]

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 very fact that the golden rule has existed so long is evidence that it corresponds to reality. In daily life fantasies don’t survive the test of time whereas facts are fertile. Jesus went much further than the golden rule because He told us to love our enemies. He also extended “our neighbour” to every single person on earth and told us we are all brothers and sisters because we have one Father in heaven - which is the only rational foundation for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Q

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.

I’m sure love comes before logic in your life. We’re not biological computers but persons who can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love.

Q

**QUOTE]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.
You are invoking the principle of equality without any justification for its validity.

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”.

On the contrary I maintain that miracles sometimes happen whereas you maintain that miracles **never **happen. A generalisation is obviously in greater need of justification. Not only that. Your generalisation is based on the further generalisation/ assumption that all events are due to natural causes even though our primary datum and sole certainty is our stream of consciousness. We have direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings and sense data but we only infer the existence of physical reality. Our mind has precedence over matter both in the order of knowledge and our power to control ourselves. Materialism is self-contradictory because it fails to explain intangibles like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. It uses the mind to dispose of the mind!

 

[Solmyr]

On the contrary I maintain that miracles sometimes happen whereas you maintain that miracles **never **happen.

That is NOT what I said. I said that you have no grounds to declare that an event “X” was a miracle, because you lack omniscience.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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

I sympathize with you. God can sometimes feel too absent. However, he is there. We just need to learn to recognize him. I would love to be able to somehow give that experience of God’s love to you, but I am not sure how. Just like a married person could not give the experience of being married to someone who is single. They have to experience it for themselves. All I can do is pray for you that someday you will be open to it and to experience it for yourself.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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

Lol.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Just sitting around waiting for it to happen may not be enough. Sometimes one needs to believe in order to see, rather than waiting around for some kind of evidence. Faith builds on faith. Evidence can really be found in the testimony of others. Sometimes we are most blind when it comes to ourselves, but it is easier to see the testimony of others. There is a book called “drunks and monks” that may be a good read for you. It is the personal testimony of John Carmichael who was born Catholic but at an early age became an atheist and then eventually found himself coming back to God and the church. There were signs that he did not at first recognize as signs. But, they were in fact answers to his prayer which he tried at multi day novena. He was at the bottom of his barrel and looking for help. And, God did answer him, but he found himself in a spiritual warfare. There is an enemy that didn’t want him to find God as well. And, he does all kinds of tricks to try to get us away from God. When John was looking for help from God, God told him to fast, which wasn’t what he expected, or would have thought of himself.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… I don’t argue. I - personally - had no experience of God. I even asked for it (when I was a believer) and received no “reply”.

I disagree about the “want” part. I am willing to accept evidence. That is all I can do. To do otherwise is exactly as impossible for me as it would be to grab my hair and lift myself off the ground into the air.

• (1st para quoted) Yet. These things sometimes take years.
• (2nd para quoted) You have hit the nail on the head.

In OT parlance the heart was the seat of the mind, logic is a sign of sincerity, all layers of usage have their various logic in philosophy. The layers of meaning in Scripture were put there to illustrate the operation of Church members in the life of the Church.

Ignore sentimental mush.

About “apologists”. Did God send the “apologists” to you? If all they are about is “winning an argument with you”, ignore them.

Your answers will be existential and the metaphysical angle will begin to clarify a little after that.

Blind faith as per Heb 11 is for a specific phase of growth. For people to hit you over the head with it when the seeing kind should be on offer is unfair of them.

 

[Solmyr]

I sympathize with you. God can sometimes feel too absent.

“Sometimes” could be an understatement.

All I can do is pray for you that someday you will be open to it and to experience it for yourself.

That is very nice and kind of you. Thank you for it.

 

[GEddie]

It uses the mind to dispose of the mind!

Very nice. Great TR riposte

 

[tonyrey]

I

It uses the mind to dispose of the mind!

Thanks, Eddie. I’ve been so busy I haven’t seen your comment. Very often we cannot see the wood for the trees in our immensely complex lives. I’ve found that in Africa and India uneducated people grasp fundamental truths more readily than people in more sophisticated societies. A mass of information confuses rather than enlightens us. To some extent the more we know the less we understand.

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary I maintain that miracles sometimes

You have often implied that miracles never happen. We don’t need to be omniscient to reach reasonable conclusions. Science is not based on certainty but a very high degree of probability…

 

[tonyrey]

The very fact that the golden rule has existed so long is evidence that it corresponds to reality. In daily life fantasies don’t survive the test of time whereas facts are fertile. Jesus went much further than the golden rule because He told us to love our enemies. He also extended “our neighbour” to every single person on earth and told us we are all brothers and sisters because we have one Father in heaven - which is the only rational foundation for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

I’m sure love comes before logic in your life. We’re not biological computers but persons who can choose what to believe, how to live and who to love.

On the contrary I maintain that miracles sometimes happen whereas you maintain that miracles **never **happen. A generalisation is obviously in greater need of justification. Not only that. Your generalisation is based on the further generalisation/ assumption that all events are due to natural causes even though our primary datum and sole certainty is our stream of consciousness. We have direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings and sense data but we only infer the existence of physical reality. Our mind has precedence over matter both in the order of knowledge and our power to control ourselves. Materialism is self-contradictory because it fails to explain intangibles like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. It uses the mind to dispose of the mind!

Alas, no response!:bighanky:

 

[Solmyr]

You have often implied that miracles never happen. We don’t need to be omniscient to reach reasonable conclusions. Science is not based on certainty but a very high degree of probability…

That is correct. However we do not deal with science here, we deal with unfounded proclamation of “this is a miracle”. And to declare something to be a “miracle” is not reasonable, much less has a “very high degree of probability”…

But it is you, who insists that miracles do happen, so the onus of proof is on you. To achieve that you need omniscience, because we are not aware of ALL the laws of nature. When someone uses a short phrase “there are no miracles”, it is just an abbreviated response instead of: “you have no epistemological right to declare that event ‘X’ is a miracle, because that would necessitate the knowledge of all the laws of nature, and show that all of those laws are insufficient to explain the phenomenon in question”. Instead of typing this long sentence, it is easier to say: “there are no miracles”.

Alas, no response!

Well, no, since I did not want to hurt your feelings. But since you insist… I will have to risk the misunderstanding.

This is what you said:

Materialism is self-contradictory because it fails to explain intangibles like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. It uses the mind to dispose of the mind!

If you would have said that materialism is insufficient because it (allegedly) cannot explain those “intangibles”, then you would have been simply wrong or incorrect. But to insist that it is “self-contradictory” is sheer nonsense - and this evaluation is NOT an ad-hominem. The phrase “this propositions is false” WOULD be self-contradictory… and you really should know that.

Of course you would be wrong, even if your “criticism” would have been correctly and rationally formulated. All those “intangibles” can be explained - and very easily, too - within the framework of materialism. It uses the correct concept of the “mind” to expose the your irrational view of the “mind”.

I would suggest that you stop this annoying “No response!” type of “nagging”. No one is obliged to answer someone else’s posts. If there is no response, deal with it, and don’t behave like a child (throwing a tantrum), who is being ignored. And that is also not an ad hominem.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

It’s a matter of differentiating whys and hows. A reasonable and logical argument can lead you to accept a belief in God, but belief alone is a static thought. For example, you can make a reasonable and logical argument that your wife won’t cheat on you by considering her past and present behavior, but it still requires faith to actively trust her. …

It’s the same with God. If you only accept God intellectually, they you render him a mere thought. But God is living. He is existence itself. Reasonable and logical arguments can lead you to believe in him, but this belief is an idol if you do not actively engage him through prayer and works. … Saint James said:

“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? … 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:14-26 NKJV)

And why Saint Paul said:

"8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; … Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

No the Scriptures quoted are not intended to answer someone in Solmyr’s position.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Traditionally, the heart signifies openness to love. Think Valentines!

This is mush.

Christianity puts the love of God and others at the center of our being…

Atheistic Scientism puts thought, not love, at the center of our being.

Thought can be done with love and an act of love for God’s creation.

Christianity declares you cannot know God without being open to loving God.

Atheistic Scientism declares you cannot “show me God” so there is no God.

This is not relevant to the OP’s question which was about the heart and Christian belief in an individual is a result not a cause. You haven’t addressed the OP’s question at all.

…

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

So it is just a meaningless leftover? In the times of Aristotle the brain was supposed to be the organ which had one function: “to cool the blood”. Should we adhere to this concept?

Not only is there confusion among various people as to the metaphor, but what role do the people you quote have in your life? Do they relate to you in some way? It may be genuinely the case that their remarks are of no signifiance.

Logical arguments MUST always come first. Only when the existence of God has been firmly established can one embark on the next step, of building a relationship with God.

They may happen together, which doesn’t exactly contradict the principle you state here..

To pray to someone whose very existence is questioned would be a “farce”.

When I USED to be a believer, that is exactly what I did. Needless to say, nothing happened.

Is there some question that this position isn’t provisionally OK for you in the circumstances? (We live in the provisional.)

 

[tonyrey]

You have often implied that miracles never happen. We don’t need to be omniscient to reach reasonable conclusions. Science is not based on certainty but a very high degree of probability…

How do you assess a degree of improbability in view of the immense number of scientifically inexplicable events in answer to prayer and seemingly providential? It seems like a preconceived conclusion based on the untenable theory that everything has a physical origin.

But it is you, who insists that miracles do happen, so the onus of proof is on you. To achieve that you need omniscience, because we are not aware of ALL the laws of nature. When someone uses a short phrase “there are no miracles”, it is just an abbreviated response instead of: “you have no epistemological right to declare that event ‘X’ is a miracle, because that would necessitate the knowledge of all the laws of nature, and show that all of those laws are insufficient to explain the phenomenon in question”. Instead of typing this long sentence, it is easier to say: “there are no miracles”.

Again you are assuming the laws of nature can in principle explain everything. Can they even explain themselves?

Alas, no response!

Well, no, since I did not want to hurt your feelings. But since you insist… I will have to risk the misunderstanding.

It is not a question of hurt feelings but surprise at an abrupt end to a discussion you initiated.

This is what you said:

Quote:
Materialism is self-contradictory because it fails to explain intangibles like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. It uses the mind to dispose of the mind!
If you would have said that materialism is insufficient because it (allegedly) cannot explain those “intangibles”, then you would have been simply wrong or incorrect. But to insist that it is “self-contradictory” is sheer nonsense - and this evaluation is NOT an ad-hominem. The phrase “this propositions is false” WOULD be self-contradictory… and you really should know that.

Materialism is self-contradictory because it has not explained intangibles like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love nor has it explained materialism - which is an intangible theory that cannot be perceived by the senses. It uses the mind to dispose of the mind…

Of course you would be wrong, even if your “criticism” would have been correctly and rationally formulated. All those “intangibles” can be explained - and very easily, too - within the framework of materialism. It uses the correct concept of the “mind” to expose the your irrational view of the “mind”.

Please give an example of how “truth” can be explained within the framework of materialism.

I would suggest that you stop this annoying “No response!” type of “nagging”. No one is obliged to answer someone else’s posts. If there is no response, deal with it, and don’t behave like a child (throwing a tantrum), who is being ignored. And that is also not an ad hominem.

What you regard as “nagging” was a polite request for enlightenment indicated by “Alas!” No one is obliged to answer someone else’s posts but if some one starts a thread, engages in a lengthy discussion and then for no apparent reason ceases to respond it seems odd not to acknowledge the other person’s post.

As for behaving like a child people often accuse others of their own defects… To be annoyed by “Alas, no response!” followed by amusing icons suggests an overreaction and lack of sense of humour…

 

[Solmyr]

Materialism is self-contradictory…

If you don’t understand the meaning of “self-contradictory”, even after it has been explained, there is no reason to continue… and no use to start the “nagging” of “No response!”…

 

[tonyrey]

If you don’t understand the meaning of “self-contradictory”, even after it has been explained, there is no reason to continue… and no use to start the “nagging” of “No response!”…

I shall leave others to decide whether my questions have been answered satisfactorily.