Zeus

[hikersong]

Okay, I see what you're saying, because a telescope is scientific and the stars & such are mysteries, and with the telescope you can see the stuff in space a little better. Gotchya.
The question still stands for Hikersong though!!!!

Hi manic,

I'd just carry on down the direction Mark started. I find it impossible not to get moved by pictures like that. Even reading, for instance, about the sheer size of the Universe, something that we have only learnt about through observing and reasoning, is enough to make my head explode and can bring either a big smile to my face, or a tear to my eye...depending on the moons orbit

I'm not a scientist so I tend to understand the principle of the methods of discovery (sometimes) rather than the details, but that is enough to generate the Wow factor for me.

The mystery is supplied by the way that knowing more reveals more unknowing. I haven't a clue (like everyone else, scientist or sage, if truth be told) about how it all came to be, but in moments when my mind is clear and I am not overwhelmed with the noise of day to day living, I am gobsmacked by the amazingness of it all.

 

[_JJM]

The mystery is supplied by the way that knowing more reveals more unknowing. I haven't a clue (like everyone else, scientist or sage, if truth be told) about how it all came to be, but in moments when my mind is clear and I am not overwhelmed with the noise of day to day living, I am gobsmacked by the amazingness of it all.

Psalm 19:1-4

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.

 

[hikersong]

The psalms have a great way of expressing awe and wonder sometimes.

 

[Livindesert]

Shock and awe

 

[_JJM]

---

 

[Catherineanne]

Well, I'd context the notion that "new" equals "inauthentic". After all, each and every religious tradition started out at some point, no matter how venerable they may seem nowadays.

I don't object to new faiths. What I object to is newly constructed faiths masquerading as old faiths. Today's pagans are not the same as ancient pagans, and therefore it is rather disingenous of them to claim to worship Zeus. Quite simply, they don't. They worship a modern concept of Zeus, which is likely to have very little in common with the Zeus of Ancient Greece.

Similarly, modern day Druids may be nice and poetic, but I don't see any of them being asked to compose poetry while buried in a box in the ground for a week.

And if 21st century neo-paganism doesn't include animal sacrifice among its practices, that might be because it adjusts to our present reality, our changed living conditions.

That is fine; I am not advocating animal cruelty in any form. Just pointing out that to claim to be a pagan, while missing out whole chunks of pagan practice, is rather contradictory.

I know faiths change. Judaism has changed beyond recognition from its mass animal sacrifice in the temple, but it does not matter that this part has been lost; the faith itself has developed and evolved over time, as Christianity has, and other major faiths, but in this evolution it has not lost touch with its roots; its authenticity. They have not died out, and then been reconstructed.

That said, there *are* pagans who insist that what they do is basically more than just inspired by the ancients - and they're usually not the ones who actually bother to read historical source texts, either. (*cough* Wicca as stone-age-religion *cough*) They tend to be rather annoying, especially if they switch into "what-the-christians-did-to-us-during-the-"Burning Times"-mode.

Here I bow to your greater knowledge in this, WW.

 

[Catherineanne]

Anyway, my theory here may be one possible way to bring together the two opposing arguments. Maybe BOTH evolution AND creationism are correct. I wonder if anyone else has thought of it too.

Thank you for your contribution, JJ. I am sorry to say, it is unlikely that Christians will be at all interested in what the Koran has to say about creation. Moslems accept the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, but I am afraid we are under no such obligation to accept the Koran, and therefore we are highly unlikely to use it to help us to interpret the Bible.

I know you mean well, and I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but the Koran simply is not Scripture to us, just as Mohammed is not one of our prophets.

As to your last point, God is the Creator, and evolution is the best current explanation of the development of life on earth. Science tells us how, and the Bible tells us why. In that sense they are indeed both true.

 

[manicfaith]

Hikersong.....

Thank you very much for your response. In feeling and thought I coincide with you in almost every point but this, I think, is where the difference is:
You put your faith in science, which will never be enough.
I put my faith in the God of science(and all else) who is, for me, the beginning and the end, the tying and untying of the riddle. I don't understand it all either, I'm no scientist nor theologist.
And I hope you aren't offended by me saying that...I don't mean any disrespect. You made the analogy of the Loch Ness monster being comparable to God
It's just that, to me, people who claim they don't believe in God, but in science and fact, really do believe in a god, but maybe don't realize it. For me they believe in the God of human reason or something. It's a way to believe we have it all under control, or will someday. There's no beginning to creation to you, but you put your faith in a reason that eludes you. So who is the "deity" at the top of the Science faith? Humanity? So-called "Logic"? Hey, thoughout history, our "logic" has been CONSTANTLY busted as ridiculous. Remember when we were all so sure that the earth was flat?

It all comes down to who or what you are depositing your faith into. Because our science and reason, are not infallible....because they come from people and we make mistakes.
Anyway, whatever. I didn't want to preach at you, sorry. Did that sound preachy?
Sorry, I was just letting my mouth run.

I really like/share your thought about how knowing more leads to knowing less in a way. Isn't that a paradox? There are so many incredible paradoxes in this life. For me, they are just as gobsmackingly amazing as they are to you... I'm glad they make you happy.
Hope to hear more from ya...have a nice weekend Hikersong!!!!

 

[JJWhite]

Thank you for your contribution, JJ. I am sorry to say, it is unlikely that Christians will be at all interested in what the Koran has to say about creation. Moslems accept the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, but I am afraid we are under no such obligation to accept the Koran, and therefore we are highly unlikely to use it to help us to interpret the Bible.

I know you mean well, and I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but the Koran simply is not Scripture to us, just as Mohammed is not one of our prophets.

As to your last point, God is the Creator, and evolution is the best current explanation of the development of life on earth. Science tells us how, and the Bible tells us why. In that sense they are indeed both true.

That's understandable. I still think it's a cool theory though. lol.

 

[JJWhite]

Scientists Explain Red Sea Parting and Other Miracles

 

[Catherineanne]

That's understandable. I still think it's a cool theory though. lol.

One thing I could say about the different Christian denominations is that they take different approaches to the mysteries of God. The Roman Catholics think deeply, pray, consult, pray some more, and come up with answers, and then offer those answers to their Church as dogma (accepted wisdom about God or the world). The Orthodox think deeply, pray, consult, pray some more, and decide that God's mysteries are not within our power to answer, and then offer that mystery to their Church as evidence that God cannot be defined. (This is, of course, a huge simplification, but I hope it does not dishonour either denomination.)

I think, of the two, I tend to go with the Orthodox position. It is not for man to determine all the answers. I can (and do) accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, without having to know how that miracle is achieved by God. Similarly, there is no need for us to decide how God parted the Red Sea; we only have to accept that he did. Approaching God through science may teach us a great deal, but it is not necessarily the best way to approach Scripture.

I suspect you are the kind of Moslem who likes to find answers. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but just remember that whatever you find will never be the last word about God. He will always remain undefinable, and just out of reach.

 

[Catherineanne]

Scientists Explain Red Sea Parting and Other Miracles

Interesting link, thanks.

 

[JJWhite]

One thing I could say about the different Christian denominations is that they take different approaches to the mysteries of God. The Roman Catholics think deeply, pray, consult, pray some more, and come up with answers, and then offer those answers to their Church as dogma (accepted wisdom about God or the world). The Orthodox think deeply, pray, consult, pray some more, and decide that God's mysteries are not within our power to answer, and then offer that mystery to their Church as evidence that God cannot be defined. (This is, of course, a huge simplification, but I hope it does not dishonour either denomination.)

I think, of the two, I tend to go with the Orthodox position. It is not for man to determine all the answers. I can (and do) accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, without having to know how that miracle is achieved by God. Similarly, there is no need for us to decide how God parted the Red Sea; we only have to accept that he did. Approaching God through science may teach us a great deal, but it is not necessarily the best way to approach Scripture.

I suspect you are the kind of Moslem who likes to find answers. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but just remember that whatever you find will never be the last word about God. He will always remain undefinable, and just out of reach.

If I were to label my 'methodolgy', I would label myself an 'Orthodox Muslim' though that label doesn't exist to my knowledge. You'll find I've mentioned this in several of my posts on CF. The more I learn about Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, with all of their focus on tradition, the more I feel that I 'think' in a similar way.

I kept trying to use the word 'THEORY' up there to clarify it was nothing more than that. My main purpose was to show that science does not disprove God. There's just so much we don't know. Those that deny God based on Science accurately access that many of those who believe in God arrogantly look down upon them and belittle them, which is, in my opinion very sad. But, in my humble opinion, those who deny God, are perhaps even more arrogant (generally speaking) if they think they can understand the world better than the One who created it all. For me, I fully agree that science is nothing more than a tool that could help us 'appreciate' Scripture, but it definitely is not something that I would use to define Scripture.

I ask God to rid our hearts of arrogance and to show us the Truth and to help us live by it.

As for the nature of God, what God has told us about Himself I believe in, what He has denied I deny, what He hasn't mentioned I neither affirm nor deny, I know that nothing is like Him, and that 'HOW' He is can just never be imagined by the finite human mind.

 

[Catherineanne]

If I were to label my 'methodolgy', I would label myself an 'Orthodox Muslim' though that label doesn't exist to my knowledge. You'll find I've mentioned this in several of my posts on CF. The more I learn about Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, with all of their focus on tradition, the more I feel that I 'think' in a similar way.

Fine. At least you are open to learn about other traditions, and don't just write them off.

I kept trying to use the word 'THEORY' up there to clarify it was nothing more than that. My main purpose was to show that science does not disprove God. There's just so much we don't know. Those that deny God based on Science accurately access that many of those who believe in God arrogantly look down upon them and belittle them, which is, in my opinion very sad. But, in my humble opinion, those who deny God, are perhaps even more arrogant (generally speaking) if they think they can understand the world better than the One who created it all. For me, I fully agree that science is nothing more than a tool that could help us 'appreciate' Scripture, but it definitely is not something that I would use to define Scripture.

It is a mistake to suppose that science ever sets out to say anything whatever about God; it doesn't. Scientists can be believers, or they can be non believers; in neither case does that make any difference to the validity of their work, because science deals with the knowledge of that which is in creation. God is not in creation, and therefore is outside the reach of science in every field. Which is why he has a separate field all of his own.

I ask God to rid our hearts of arrogance and to show us the Truth and to help us live by it.

None of us will know the whole truth about God until we stand before him. Until then we all see as through a darkened glass.

As for the nature of God, what God has told us about Himself I believe in, what He has denied I deny, what He hasn't mentioned I neither affirm nor deny, I know that nothing is like Him, and that 'HOW' He is can just never be imagined by the finite human mind.

This is fine as long as we understand that anything said to us from God has come through man, and therefore is always going to bear human fingerprints. This is true of all Scriptures; however inspired they may be, they are not God himself, and they are not equal in authority to him. As you rightly say, nothing is like him.

 

[JJWhite]

It is a mistake to suppose that science ever sets out to say anything whatever about God; it doesn't. Scientists can be believers, or they can be non believers; in neither case does that make any difference to the validity of their work, because science deals with the knowledge of that which is in creation. God is not in creation, and therefore is outside the reach of science in every field. Which is why he has a separate field all of his own.

Good way of looking at it.


None of us will know the whole truth about God until we stand before him.

Agreed.



This is fine as long as we understand that anything said to us from God has come through man, and therefore is always going to bear human fingerprints. This is true of all Scriptures; however inspired they may be, they are not God himself, and they are not equal in authority to him. As you rightly say, nothing is like him.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, I would agree, but, well, to be perfectly honest with you, as a Muslim, I would disagree ONLY with regards to WORDS of the Qur'an.. in Arabic, but definitely not each and every human interpretation of it, which as is obvious to all, often contradict. In the Qur'an, God promises to surely preserve and protect it. Under the assumption that those to whom it was sent down to transmitted that verse in particular accurately (which does still indeed require a leap of faith), then I believe that the Qur'an is of God and truly representative of Him. My belief is that through the Qur'an, we can get to know God as far as is humanly possible. I understand that you might not see it that way, but that is what I hold true in my heart.

And God knows best.

 

[Catherineanne]

GENERALLY SPEAKING, I would agree, but, well, to be perfectly honest with you, as a Muslim, I would disagree ONLY with regards to WORDS of the Qur'an.. in Arabic, but definitely not each and every human interpretation of it, which as is obvious to all, often contradict. In the Qur'an, God promises to surely preserve and protect it. Under the assumption that those to whom it was sent down to transmitted that verse in particular accurately (which does still indeed require a leap of faith), then I believe that the Qur'an is of God and truly representative of Him. My belief is that through the Qur'an, we can get to know God as far as is humanly possible. I understand that you might not see it that way, but that is what I hold true in my heart.

And God knows best.

If God says there is nothing like him, and yet you think as a Moslem that the Koran is like God, then you have a problem.

So, which is it? Only one God, or one God plus another in book form, making two.

Your choice.

 

[JJWhite]

If God says there is nothing like him, and yet you think as a Moslem that the Koran is like God, then you have a problem.

So, which is it? Only one God, or one God plus another in book form, making two.

Your choice.

Not the book, as in the paper or ink.... not the voices with which it's recited... the speech that was spoken by the One God. It is one of His Attributes.

You are what you say???

 

[Catherineanne]

Not the book, as in the paper or ink.... not the voices with which it's recited... the speech that was spoken by the One God. It is one of His Attributes.

You are what you say???

The Koran is printed on paper, with covers, and then wrapped in a cloth and laid on a shelf. It is not to be touched by unbelievers. It is most certainly a thing, not a spoken word. I, a non Moslem, can go out tomorrow and buy one. I can cut out its pages and put them through the shredder, and I can use the shredded pages in my rabbit hutch.

Can I do any of these things with God?

So, two then.

Don't worry, you are not alone in this. Moslems huff and puff about Christianity having more than one god, while at the same time having two themselves. Which is why we generally take no notice of their huffing and puffing.

Good luck untangling that one.

Here is what is actually true of God: God's first language is silence, and anything else is a translation. The Koran is Mohammed's translation of the silence of God. It is to be revered by Moslems as Mohammed's translation of the silence of God, but it is not God, nor is it equal in authority or status to God. There is nothing in all creation like God. There is nothing in all creation which is to be worshipped as God, or accorded respect due only to him. God is not a book.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy Lord is One God.

 

[JJWhite]

The Koran is printed on paper, with covers, and then wrapped in a cloth and laid on a shelf. It is not to be touched by unbelievers. It is most certainly a thing, not a spoken word. I, a non Moslem, can go out tomorrow and buy one. I can cut out its pages and put them through the shredder, and I can use the shredded pages in my rabbit hutch.

Can I do any of these things with God?

So, two then.

Don't worry, you are not alone in this. Moslems huff and puff about Christianity having more than one god, while at the same time having two themselves. Which is why we generally take no notice of their huffing and puffing.

Good luck untangling that one.

Here is what is actually true of God: God's first language is silence, and anything else is a translation. The Koran is Mohammed's translation of the silence of God. It is to be revered by Moslems as Mohammed's translation of the silence of God, but it is not God, nor is it equal in authority or status to God. There is nothing in all creation like God. There is nothing in all creation which is to be worshipped as God, or accorded respect due only to him. God is not a book.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy Lord is One God.

I agree with the bolded statement most fervently.

Any Muslim who believes that the actual physical books we hold in our hands is God would be committing idolatry! They are obviously within the realm on creation.

All rulings regarding purification before holding a copy of the Qur'aan are based on respect for it because it is the record of God's speech.

Let's say you dictated a letter addressed to me. You asked someone else to write down your exact words. I then received this letter. That piece of paper upon which your words are written is not you, and I would be stupid if I thought it were. Your essence and the paper's essence are clearly distinct and separate. Depending on how much I valued you though would be how much I valued that paper and held it dear to my heart. That letter represents your message to me in your very own words. So, the more I loved you, the more I'd love that letter. A message from my beloved is one I'd cherish and keep safe, and I would not let kids play with it, for example, because I don't think they'd give it the respect it deserves. I wouldn't want your letter to end up shredded in a rabbit hutch either... not because it IS you, but because it is FROM you and it has YOUR WORDS written on it.

I believe that God SPOKE and that Moses HEARD Him directly. To my understanding, this is also mentioned in Judeo-Christian Scripture.

There is a big difference between this and saying that God became flesh and blood. If a person who called himself/herself a Muslim said that God became paper and ink, I would most certainly condemn it as strongly.

 

[Catherineanne]

Any Muslim who believes that the actual physical books we hold in our hands is God would be committing idolatry!

Exactly so.

To the Jew, the word of God is found in the Law and the Prophets, but the Law and the Prophets are not God.

To the Christian, the Word of God is Christ; the Incarnation of the Most High, of one being with the Father.

To the Moslem, the word of God is a book.