God is Love
Offline So this thought occurred to me while I was posting in another thread. I had asked a theist if he only loved his family because God made him love them, and that kind of set off a spark in my brain. So my question to theists is this:
If God is Love, then without him would we all be indifferent to those who currently mean the most to us? Or worse, would we be actively harming them?
Think about it.
- Login to post comments
Offline So I'll suggest that religion limits human altruism so that we all don't kill each each other all the time for a particular population's benefit.
no, we just kill each other over our imaginary friends.
that makes total sense...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline scuppers wrote:So I'll suggest that religion limits human altruism so that we all don't kill each each other all the time for a particular population's benefit.
no, we just kill each other over our imaginary friends.
that makes total sense...
Provide an example. Don't give me individuals. Thats not how altruism works. Any lone person can be mentally deranged, religious or atheist. Give me populations or nations that go to war or kill their own people for their own benefit. I'll start first. The Soviet Union and Communist China under Mao were countries whose government promoted atheistic worldviews. The two can combine for over 100 million innocent deaths (most likely more but such particular demographic catastrophe will never assuredly be known) for the good of their countries. These numbers have never been matched. Altruism needs to be checked or the primal instinct of nature will cause the downtrodden to perish.
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek wrote:scuppers wrote:So I'll suggest that religion limits human altruism so that we all don't kill each each other all the time for a particular population's benefit.
no, we just kill each other over our imaginary friends.
that makes total sense...
Provide an example. Don't give me individuals. Thats not how altruism works. Any lone person can be mentally deranged, religious or atheist. Give me populations or nations that go to war or kill their own people for their own benefit. I'll start first. The Soviet Union and Communist China under Mao were countries whose government promoted atheistic worldviews. The two can combine for over 100 million innocent deaths (most likely more but such particular demographic catastrophe will never assuredly be known) for the good of their countries. These numbers have never been matched. Altruism needs to be checked or the primal instinct of nature will cause the downtrodden to perish.
I'll take the bait because I'm curious how you'll squirm out of this. The crusades. Modern "war on terror." Colonial American witch hunts.
- Login to post comments
Hello Iwbiek,
What of the Noble Eightfold Path and Pratiya-Samutpada at the core of Hinayana though? Is not one of the spokes to be broken that of feeling and response? I was also speaking more of Sunya-Vada, where sunyata is pratitya-samutpada. The Lotus Sutra demonstrates this nicely. Perhaps 'indifference' is the wrong word though. A better word may be .
That was fun, but if you want to discuss Buddhism, perhaps it should be done elsewhere. It would be grossly unfair to hijack Gallowsbait's thread.
no, by all means, let us continue here for convenience's sake. i don't plan to take long, since i won't split hairs between theravada and mahayana and nagarjuna and vasubhandu, etc., etc.
well, first of all, "hinayana" is a bit perjorative. i believe the adherents of this tradition prefer "theravada." dependent arising is a key buddhist doctrine and likely was taught by the buddha himself. however, we must always bear in mind the buddha's method: the buddha never speculated for speculation's sake, and the only thing close to our idea of an "absolute" or "universal" he ever taught were the four noble truths. everything else was built upon and pointed to these precepts, and that was their only purpose. we have no evidence that the doctrine of dependent arising, and the realization of such, involved the cessation of emotion or compassionate action. the digha-nikaya clearly states that a disciple can experience the whole range of feelings, both pleasant and unpleasant, and that it is beneficial for him to contemplate these feelings: he only need remain unattached to them. this is part of the step of right mindfulness as outlined in the digha-nikaya.
sunyata is a mahayana preoccupation. the theravadins (and, from what we can tell, the buddha himself) stuck with the straightforward idea of anatta, meaning quite simply that there is no permanent "substance" behind anything. "nirvana is samsara" and vice-versa is nagarjuna's later embellishment, but even this doesn't necessarily mean the cessation of "caring" about things in a compassionate sense while the arhat remains in his physical body. call it nirvana, sunyata, sunyavada, satori, wu, anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, it's all varying shades of the same thing: nonattachment. that doesn't mean nonfeeling, only nonattachment to feeling.
the lotus sutra is primarily an apologetic for the superiority of the mahayana, but if you want to examine later sources, a sutra that deals more closely with the state of mind of the bodhisattva is the sanskrit diamond sutra (or for that matter any of the prajna-paramita sutras). the dana paramita (the practice of charity) and the sila paramita (the practice of selfless kindness) both affirm the benefit of compassionate feeling in the bodhisattva. of course, the sutra makes it clear that this feeling is in actuality a part of dependent arising, but it urges its cultivation as an expedient for leading other beings to buddhahood.
my whole point is not to flash around my knowledge of buddhism but to argue that buddhism (meaning quite simply the basic teachings of the buddha as outlined in the most likely authentic sources), properly understood and properly practised (neither of which i claim to do), is a religion that is more likely to breed compassionate feeling and action than its abrahamic counterparts. in its rinzai zen form, it has certainly made me a better person, in helping me to overcome periods of depression and misanthropy, though i am not in any sense a buddhist, only an admirer of the buddha. as a token of my disinterestedness, allow me to add i am a vehement critic of the dalai lama and the whole tibetan lamist regime.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Hi Iwbiek,
Thanks for the nicely reasoned response.
Gallowsbait... if at any time you'd like us to take this elsewhere, please just say so and I'll be happy to create a new thread if needed.
Theravada refers to the modern descendant of Hinayana though, and as a descendant has possibly accrued other things. While Hinayana may be seen as a bit perjorative, would the Buddha or his teachings support being so concerned about a word? Hinayana as a term is also more instructive of the difference between itself and Mahayana, in that the 'vehicle' in Hinayana is really built for the individual.
No problem flashing around knowledge. If you have the knowledge, then to expound it is not flash unless that is the intent. If there is 'truth', then to share the individual knowledge we have, however limited, will help us all to see truth more clearly.
I cannot say I'm an exert in Buddhism either (would anyone say that?), though I have lived in countries where both Therevada or Chan Buddhism are practiced, and have read and discussed a little on the subject.
Might I ask if you judge the good of Buddhism against a positive experience (in this case your own), but weigh Abrahamic religion against a different scale? If we compare "properly understood and properly practised" Buddhism, should we not compare it to "properly understood and properly practised" Abrahamic religion? Perhaps to be more precise, we should speak of Rinzai Zen in your case, with 'Biblical' Christianity on my own?
By all means you two discuss whatever your hearts desire. I've always wanted to learn more about Buddhism.
GB:
Are you referring to the conversation you had with the gentleman pictured with his infant daughter (I cannot recall for the life of me what his name was...)?
I think I remember the conversation because you asked him several pointed questions about the dichotomy that exists between love of family and obedience to "god"- for which he had no sufficient answer. In fact, as I recall, he spouted a few theist phrases at you and didn't bother to answer explicitly.
Of course, I may have dreamed the whole exchange...
U.E.
Yes, that's exactly right. Don't remember his username either. :P And you're right, he never did actually answer me, just somehow maneuvered around what I was asking to make an unrelated point. But it's been a while since I visited that thread so I may be fuzzy on the details as well.
My dog loves me. I am his "pack leader" (thank you, Cesar Milan). He mopes around when I'm away and he gets happy and excited when I get home from work. When I'm home, he prefers to be near me. Is this a reflection of The Divine or is it a consequence of the evolution of two social species which, for many thousands of years, have lived together? [Rhetorical question alert!]
Regarding the discussion in other posts in this thread about some folks' willingness to kill in the name of God, Dr. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University surveyed his students regularly about such matters and reported that a consistent percentage of his students answered "Yes" to the question of whether or not they'd be willing to kill if God ordered it -- and they were among the students who also seemed to be prone to having what they interpreted as spiritual experiences. For a bit more on that, go here: http://www.shaktitechnology.com/terrorism.htm and here: http://www.skeptic.ca/Persinger.htm
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
dragoon,
this is shaping up to be extremely pleasant for me and i'll do my best to respond, but i've had a fair quantity of homemade burgundy so i apologize in advance if some things are unclear.
i've never heard it put that way, actually, but how do you define the "original" hinayana thought? i won't deny that modern theravada buddhism contains a lot of accretions to the original teachings of the buddha, but even when talking about the "authentic" words of the buddha, i always make sure to qualify with a phrase like "most likely," or at least with inverted commas. in any case, i've never heard this particular distinction between "hinayana" and "theravada."
well said. damn well said, actually. that gives me food for thought the next time i'm at the bar with my pipe and half a liter of microbrewed, unpasteurized eastern slovak lager.
of course we all have to deal with at least a residue of past experiences when speaking about subjective things, but i wouldn't go so far as that. please understand that my admiration of buddhism as a whole is not without criticism. that's why i always make it clear i'm not a buddhist. i consider a lot of the religious practices and beliefs in buddhist countries to be every bit as ignorant and superstitious as abrahamic practices and beliefs. allow me to emphasize again my strong opposition to the dalai lama and the restoration of the lamaist regime in tibet, about which i am very vocal (ironically enough, often to the horror of my christian friends).
i've had plenty of experience with christianity and much of it was positive. i wouldn't say i've had any real experience with buddhism. i'm just an avid reader of both buddhist scripture and buddhist scholarship. it's just the simple fact that texts like the fire sermon, the dhammapada, the diamond sutra, the authentic and attributed writings of bodhidharma, the words of the ch'an patriatrchs like hui neng, takuan soho's "the unfettered mind," and the positively delightful prose and poetry of basho have helped me, and continue to help me, through unexplainable periods of bleak depression. as i have stated many times in this forum, this is due chiefly to their unparalleled efficacy in putting the universe into a perspective that makes sense to me and comforts me. it has nothing to do with any metaphysical or eschatological promises these texts may make (which, actually, they don't seem to make), nor would i strongly recommend them to anyone else for the same purpose. i don't consider myself a bhikkhu or samana or anything like that, nor do i entertain hopes of ever becoming an arhat, nor am i sure arhats even exist.
it's not a question of "weighing" religions with me, as i'm not religious one way or the other.
well, i'm not sure about that. rinzai zen, or at least rinzai zen literature, has been very beneficial to me, but i'm not sure if the historical buddha (yes, i take the existence of the historical buddha for granted, though it's not essential for me) would recognize everything in it, particularly the idea of a sudden satori. i think that out of the whole mahayana tradition, however, zen does the best job of getting "back to basics," and perhaps the buddha would appreciate it more than many of the theravada accretions in thailand or burma, for example.
when i talk about buddhism "properly understood and practised" i mean sticking as closely as possible to the model outlined in the most likely authentic words of the buddha from the earliest pali sources. as to the gist of these teachings, i think e.a. burtt's anthology does a good job at offering an "authentic" distillation. walpola rahula's what the buddha taught is also a classic, of course, and even old goddard does a good job, in my opinion.
if you want to define your religion in your own way, i have no problem with that. however, i don't know why you're bringing that into the conversation. if you're trying to segue into a debate on the comparative merits of our respective takes on buddhism and abrahamic religion, i'm not interested, not least because i have no real vested interest in defending buddhism.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
No problem at all. Discussion of the things we are passionate about should be pleasant. I am rather saddened by people who are unable to discuss sex, politics, and religion... those are 3 fascinating subjects.
I prefer a nice glass of tawny port or a good stout myself, but to each his own joy.
Nothing particularly scholarly about it though. More my own reflections upon seeing Buddhism in Thailand and Myanmar.
I'd echo you a bit on 'original' hinayana thought... return to our best earliest sources and look at them with a critical eye. What are the 'best' original sources though may be a nice question.
I enjoyed your well written reply earlier as well. Might I recommend a nice Irish Beamish or English Hobgoblin ale? Very different fom a Slovak Lager, but I'd be curious as to your reaction.
I think a healthy criticism is always beneficial. Someone has to watch the watchmen.
I'm assuming you read them in translation? Your reading of the texts is much more extensive than mine, but such things are never good to approach as a competitive race anyway. Much of my more recent reading has been on Sikh mysticism, the Bhagavad Gita and Islam... I tend towards eclectic.
Debate is such a horrible thing. All that jockeying to 'win'. I just enjoy a nice chat about the things I love. Being proven 'wrong' on occassion is such a lovely thing... keeps our heads from flying off.
I brought Christianity up because I'm a 'Christian'. What that means I'll let you decide as our conversation carries on. I'm fine discussing interesting aspects of Buddhism, but I do try to avoid passing judgements on things outside what I have adequete knowledge of. If I veer into Biblical perspectives, please excuse me, but that is my framework for understanding existance.
Your comment on "buddhism 'properly understood and practised' i mean sticking as closely as possible to the model outlined in the most likely authentic words of the buddha from the earliest pali sources" is interesting. In your writing, you seem to lean towards a more mahayana/zen approach. Why do you consider the Theravada less 'authentic'?
I often wonder whether western Buddhism in its 'naivete' is more authentic than that practiced in the East... or whether we have created a cyborg beast out of our own willingness to read hope into the unknown (or at least the lesser known).
You are oscillating here. You are implying (or have implied) that theists are disinterested in building a better world mainly because they are other-worldly. On the other hand, you have implied that atheists are interested in building a better world specifically because they have no belief in another world. This is the same argument that was hatched by atheistic Marxists - who promoted a utopian socialist vision with messianic zeal.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopian
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/messianic
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Hi Gb,
I'm your girl for "less sophisticated".
I always thought the term "God is Love" was coined by hippies and actually meant "Love is God". That the essence of love itself was the "Higher Power" (there you go Vastet). and therefore "Free Love" (or "getting squelchy" - thank you Athiest Extremist) with anyone and everyone was the ultimate expression of love.
Not exactly a Christian sentiment.
Is belief in God necessary to experience love? I don't know how a theist can possibly support this statement. Especially those that insist the Bible be taken literally. What - did the Philistines not love thier children too? Theist or not - I hold to the fact that no prophet ever desired thier disciples to become elitists about the finest quality a human may possess. That of caring for another creature equal to or above themselves. As a matter of fact, this quality is probably what inspired men of vision to create religions in the first place. Not "God is love".
Love is God.
From the Bible: (1Cor 13)
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of Angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."
As for Christians (Muslims, Buddhists, et al) who would kill because thier God told them to. They should make sure it's a direct order. A favorite quote of mine (also, oddly enough a Christian essayist - C.S Lewis somes this up quite nicley:
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Iwbiek, Dragoon,
I would love to see you take the topic of Buddhism (especially Tibetan Buddhism) to another thread - just so it could be properly titled and encourage more discussion. It's a rapidly (3rd largest) growing religious philosophy in North America, and absolutely rife with nonsense. Some of it dangerous nonsense.
(I've enjoyed reading your posts).
well, i wasn't planning on having an involved discussion on it. in particular i can't speak to tibetan buddhism very much, since i don't know much about it in comparison with other traditions. the heavy influence of shamanism on it always turned me off. my opposition to the dalai is mostly political, though i think the practice of tantric sex in lamaism can be dangerous, as it can easily lead to the exploitation of young girls.
if you would care to create a thread, i might weigh in if i feel it appropriate. i'd especially like to know which aspects of buddhism you find dangerous, or what you even mean by "dangerous." as dragoon said, north american buddhism is mostly a harmless spaced-out mongrel that was cross-bred with theosophy and new age. i am, however, very troubled by the almost universally positive attitude towards the dalai lama in the US, especially among the idiots in hollywood.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Speaking of the dalai lama, does anyone have a clue why, in Miss Congeniality, Sandra Bullock kept saying "Dalai Lama, Dalai Lama, Dalai Lama" to make herself laugh???
(sorry, I know it has nothing to do with anything I was just curious)
Dragoon buries the dead cat.... alas poor Mittens, I knew her well Boots!
That was a fun movie though.
If anyone opens a thread, I'd post the occassional comment, but I'd echo Iwbiek. It is hard to speak to people in N America on Buddhism, because their presuppositions are often large.... well meaning, but large.
i enjoy stout as well, but here in the top lager-making region of the world, bar none, it's foolish drinking anything else. (just in case you were wondering, i currently live in slovakia.) tawny port is too sweet for me, though i sometimes enjoy a good dry sherry or amontillado. i also love madeira, but it's impossible to find over here.
i like hobgoblin. never had beamish. next time i'm stateside i'll make a trip to liquor barn and hunt it up.
the best beer i've ever had in the entire world period is the microbrewed lager i was talking about. it's called golem, and it can only be purchased draft from the pub of the same name in kosice, slovakia. they don't bottle it or export it. they make light, dark, and mix. the mix is the best.
yes, i read in translation. i'm only slightly familiar with sikhism, but i plan to study more. i have a few books queued up already. i'm very familiar with islam and persian, turkish, and moroccan sufism. in fact, i just finished hans kung's masterful (and huge) islam about two months ago. i'm a big kung fan in general. i love the gita, and have read eknath easwaren's and christopher isherwood's translations.
that doesn't bother me.
well i wouldn't go so far as say i consider theravada less "authentic," even by my rough defintion of authenticity. obviously theravada has the advantages of being historically older and dominant in countries that are closer both geographically and culturally to india, particularly sri lanka and burma, than mahayana countries. i suppose i was speaking more intuitively about the (admittedly elusive) "spirit" of the buddha's teaching. the buddha was nothing if not an iconoclast and a pragmatist. these traits practically define zen buddhism, particularly rinzai: no word is wasted, no one stands on ceremony. for example, there is the famous proverb, "if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him!", as well as the fable about the monk who on a bitterly cold night, without hesitation, chopped up a precious wooden idol of the buddha because no other firewood was available. i just think, based on my readings, that the buddha would have approved of these methods more than the heavy ceremony involved with, say, thai or burmese buddhism. however, on the mahayana side, i think he would have strongly disapproved of the nebulous esotericism of the shingon school in japan, and he would have found the pure land school utterly ridiculous. let me emphasize again that these are intuitive assertions.
i'm afraid you have hit the nail on the head with my predilection for mahayana terminology. to be honest, i actually like the sort of one-pointedness that can come with the namu amida butsu of the pure land, and i have a great respect for the ideal of the bodhisattva. my appreciation of taoism knows no bounds, so my likewise boundless appreciation of zen follows naturally.
if that is the case, then it's not buddhism. the buddha had very little interest in the unknown, and discouraged such interest in the sangha.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Why theists don't see that this is exactly what their position is.
Pais, perhaps you could explain to me how your view of things varies from the roadmap you're projecting onto Unrepentant here?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi... busy week. Haven't forgotten you, but my mind is largely mush at the end of the day right now.
Do you think the pragmatism of Buddha is original though, or is it an addition through later contact? I'm not as familiar with the Indian subcontinent, but the 'religion' of China and East Asia is thoroughly pragmatic. Did Chan Buddhism take on the culture of the area, or was it already emminently 'practical' beforehand?
this
I would have said I couldn't love anyone without god, when I was a fundie. I was taught humans were incapable of kindness and that "human goodness" was a secular myth Satan was trying to get us to believe through Hollywood & secular music.
I'm so glad I don't have to despise myself and my fellow humans anymore!
If you really & truly believe your god is telling you to do something, nothing will stop you. Faith is not a virtue; faith is a vice.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AngieAntiTheist http://angietheantitheist.blogspot.com http://excultnetwork.ning.com @antitheistangie on Twitter
glad you saw the light
Since we are talking about God, we are talking about someone who has always existed, even before this universe. 1 John 4:3 tells us that God is love. When we put these two together, we see that God has been love even before creation. There is a point in saying this.
Love requires two person's in order to exist. The love of self is not really love, for love is abandoning self-desire for the interests of another. It's like a Father's love for His Son. Love goes outward, never inward.
Taking this into account, all things were made in the pattern of love. The moon revolves around the earth, effecting the tides and weather. The earth revolves around the sun, giving it adequate sun light to produce energy for plants. Plants give off oxygen through photosynthesis, which enables people to live, and whom in turn breath out carbon dioxide for the plants. In a particle, the electrons and protons move around the nucleus to form an element, which when combined forms a compound. All this shows the self-giving, interdependent love that God made known to us in Jesus.
Now, back to your question. So without God, yes, we would be harming each other, because everything would be done in power. Humanity wouldn't have gotten a start into civilization. We would destroyed each other out of sure chaos. For, though people mock God's existence, they can barely deny love (ironic?)
If God was not love, we would not see that pattern in all the created universe. Take care.
The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made
That seems like a broad and stereotypical generalization that would not be the result of a rational thought. It is not out of hate and apathy that real Christians act, because they wouldn't even bother telling you the Gospel if they didn't care for you.
Among many kinds of American Christians, you have the Christians who tell the Gospel because they don't want people to be separated from God because they love them and have great news for them, then you have the Christians who only make the effort to take a stand so as to preserve their way of life free from the oppression from others for their faith.
It's faith vs. family values.
I hope you look into what I'm saying and not sweep me into a broad generalization of what some atheists portray to be the typical Christian nut-job. You'll get a lot of out it, I'm sure.
The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made
As a Christian, I must say that all this sacrifice business sounds crazy. I can imagine how you feel. But simply asking a theologian about it might help instead of just drawing an opinion off of visual/auditory observance. There may be symbolism behind it that many aren't understanding. That would be the rational thing to do at least.
When Paul says, "Offer yourselves up to God as living sacrifices," he isn't suggesting that we literally kill ourselves. Anyone who assume this may just as well be as crazy as the people he/she is ridiculing, unless their was SUBSTANTIAL evidence to show otherwise. Paul is asking to die to ourselves that we may be alive in Christ, meaning that we give up living for ourselves as is customary for society. Paul is discussing more of the context that a sacrifice that offers itself up to God has the choice to get off the alter. For God's glory, Christians in a manner of speaking, stay on the alter, meaning that they give up their own desires for God (even the desire to live if God chooses to take them like he took Paul at Rome.)
To those around us, we are considered lunatics, careless with our own lives. But to those who know better, we are secured in the wisdom of God. Paul calls this the peace that transcends all understanding. In the book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon (the wisest man to have lived) recognized how pointless it was to live, since everything you worked hard for will perish as well. Someone will reside in the house you built, and eat of the garden you grew, someone else would inherit your money, etc. He recognized that just having peace in this life with God was the only meaningful thing to do in this life.
Killing, however, is a different story. No where in the New Testament did Jesus order anyone to kill someone for him. If Christians are to mimic the life of Jesus, what do you think that says? I know of the OT killings, and I second a friend of mine's reply in saying that the culture back then was very different, and their outlook was different as well. Life wasn't as convenient for the individual back then as it is now. Living was not done outside of the context of community back then. If they were banished from their people, they would rather be dead than face that. So, certain pointless restrictions and abuses were made and tolerated for the sake of unified community.
Judging that culture back then with the ideals of the culture of today would be irrational, since the people of those days knew nothing of the way we think and live today.
The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made
According to your specialized definition of love, sure. However, I think it's pure bullshit.
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
That's just silly. Any social species -- that is, any species for which living in groups is part of its survival strategy -- is going to develop a tendency toward some sort of social order. The alternatives to that would be to evolve as a non-social species or to become extinct. What is most likely true is that we are capable of love and cooperation because that is what was selected for during our evolution.
There is no irony in understanding that no deity is required for the existence of normal human impulses and emotions.
How do you know?
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
Natural disasters? Diseases?
Weren't these rules and restrictions imposed by God?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
which apparently all humans experience? By the standards of what? Measured by what? Proved by what? We are elevating human love to the divine level now? I don't agree with you Paisley but I think it's a nice, if utterly impossible idea. Love is just love - it's a selfish shot glass of chemicals designed to get humans close to one another or to keep them working in support of one another. Love runs on endorphins channeled through the opioid pathways in the human brain. You can call it whatever you like and deify it as hard as you like but what you are claiming is implausible.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Actually, only one who loves himself can truly love another.
Where did I hear that from?
I'm gonna Google that now.
Tell me Matty - what will you be doing on judgment day? Interceding or just sitting around with your hands in your pockets saying: "Oh - it's god's will and he's perfect so - throw them in the fire." As for your caring enough to explain the gospel to me, try this instead. Decide the bible is apparently the work of a violent psycho and refuse to worship him, or decide the threats the bible makes are immoral and refuse to worship him. Until then, I'm just going assume it's really all about you and that precious eternal life you're so happily selling humanity down the river for.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
God's love is running the tides now? Well spare me fucken days...Matty you seem like a decent and kind person but you're the product of serious indoctrination. Reading this stuff is like going caving with a mini-maglite.
Further, without god's love civilisation would not have started? We would have destroyed each other? Well in the scheme of all things we came within a whisker of actually doing this and the hardware to get the job done is all around us.
Don't count your chickens.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hello MattyB,
Our belief systems (or lack thereof) are obviously diametrically opposed; however, while I find most theists to be pedantic, affective, and boring, your comments (taken in aggregate) seem to imply that you are as sincere in your beliefs as you are in your commitment to their propagation throughout the world. Having said as much, a few of your comments have piqued my interest as I believe they go to the very foundation of the philosophical differences implied in tired combat theater of atheist-vs.-theist.
While I agree with you that Paul had no intention of being taken literally, I find the underlying implications to be disturbing nonetheless. Is it your contention that Paul is calling humanity to embrace the long road of ascetic self-denial, suborning one's desires to the will of god (which decrees, by default, what the sine qua non of human endeavor ought to be)? If so, given the idiocy of the average human being, how can you believe that any individual will correctly interpret the will of god? If, in our subconscious desire, we merely project our personal wants onto god's intentions, is this not exacerbating the chasm between the mortal and the immortal?
As to the theistic conception of life's worth, applying Solomon as an instance of correct thinking is troublesome. If the "wisest man" contends that life is not worth living when one has found peace with (and understanding of) god, it begs the question: why would suicide among the holy be considered a sin? While I admit to slipping into a bit of hyperbolic generalization at this point, I find this contradiction to be infuriating. Is it meant to imply that god, in his infinite "love" for us, has decided that we must toil for pointless decades for reasons whose obscurity are matched only by their pointlessness? Gallowsbait started this thread on the dictum that "god is love;" is this not a cognitive dissonance?
As regards your final comments, I found them to be nearly incomprehensible. If the bible is to be taken as god's literal word, how can cultural relativism be applied? Likewise, if it is not meant to be literal, who is thus allowed to interpret the book in total for us mere mortals? While I am not necessarily meaning to be combative with this post, I feel my questions are valid nonetheless. As a note, I do not respond well to replies liberally peppered with "because god said so" or syntactical ellipses. Nevertheless, I look forward to your reply and wish you the best for the weekend.
Regards,
UE
You're going off on a tangent. What I stated originally was: "If God is love, then it logically follows that love would not exist if God did not exist." Also, the love to which believers ascribe to God is selfless. The "love" that is selfish is merely fear in another guise.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Second, If the Bible is a literal word, then when I open it, I should hear words? (Opens his Bible) Nope I'm not hearing anything. So they are written words. Written by men. Written by erroneous people. But let's look at the term 'word.' When we say word, we mean to say 'an expression of what we are thinking or feeling.' When we love someone, we don't just think it. We often say it with words. In this context, the Bible is expressing the mind of God (not opening up for exploitation.) We see that God is love (1 John 4:3) and sought to express His love for the Son (Colossions 1:16) in all that He created and found to maximize that glory by being pleased to dwell in all His fullness in the Son bodily (Colossions 1:19) and reconcile to himself all things by making peace through the blood of his cross (Colossions 1:20).
What I'm getting at is: If the Bible was the word of man, then it would bless and honor the greatness of man, like the Greek myths did. It would be about man's greatness. But no, this is not the case. The Bible is a historical, poetical, prophetical, and epistemological record of man's injustice and infidelity toward God and men, while at the same time honoring the justice and fidelity of God toward men, who were made in God's image. Any time a man did great, it was attributed to God's aid. Any time a man did wicked, it was attributed to man's sin.
In my opinion, I believe all of this was to create a sense of stress and anxiety that could only be relieved by the grace of God. The Jews were without a prophet for 400 years (from the return from Exile in Babylon to the coming of the Messiah). During this time, they were oppressed from within and without, and they desperately cried out for a deliverer. The prophets spoke of a Messiah that would deliver them.
But let's go to the beginning of mankind, according to the Bible: God sets the stage of perfection, not permitting the exercise of individuality so that the curious individual would be easily swayed. Then God curses the individual and, as Romans 5 shows, all of those who were born of his seed were cursed with a futile life and death as well. Maybe the Greeks saw this and struggled to make a name for themselves for all ages. Maybe the Babylonians saw this and sought to build a city so great that God could not scatter them. Then, God starts working with stubborn men to make them a great but bull-headed people in which the Messiah was to be born through. This Messiah would rescue people from futile existences by destroying death and having victory over death in His resurrection. The people were blinded by God to think that the Messiah would not be killed, but would deliver them from Roman oppression. This enabled them to put to death the one they sought so desperately, as John 1:10 shows: "He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him."
Now, as Romans 5 shows, all of those who are born of Christ; that is, born of faith, will receive everlasting life. No gimmicks, no performances, no flattery. God had His Son's glory in mind when He created us, and He had His Son's glory in mind when we redeemed us. It simply is not about us. We were made to worship God, and when we fail to do so, we live unrighteously. That is how the Bible expresses it.
This, is a hard thing to believe in. I know. That is why I have said that Christ is usually accepted by people who see Him as Good News. Those who reject His message are those who refuse to be least, who refuse to be last, and who refuse walk by faith even in the face of rejection and death. This can be properly examined in Hebrews 4:2, where the Jews rejected the Gospel because it did not boost their reputation, but diminished it. What do you think about it?
As you can see, the Holy Spirit is the authority on God's word. This is invisible, so seeking evidence is useless. This is experiential and relational. In the account where Jesus asks Peter, "Who do you say I am?" Peter replies, "You are the Messiah, the Son of God." Jesus tells Peter that this wasn't revealed to him by men but by the Father in heaven.
Thank you for your well tempered response UE. I hope I satisfied your requests, and perhaps struck up more questions. I take it that, being on a forum dedicated to atheists, I am unlikely to sway anyone that is already convinced, but I do not rely on predictability, for I was also once convinced that Jesus was not God, but now I am. Have a good night. I look forward to your replies.
Matt
The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made
I follow the first part readily enough - but ascribing selfless love in terms of our comprehension of it is ascribing human love. To suggest such love is selfless is questionable and to ascribe it to a being that exists outside the universe is unknowable.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
What you wrote almost makes sense, but only if you strip the word "love" of everything a human being can relate to. The universe is terribly hostile and 'chaotic'. Was the earthquake in Haiti love? Is it love when a soldier shoots someone? Is it love when a child smells a flower? All of these have neutral causes....it seems like you are anthropomorphizing the idea of God to include one particular, ill defined human idea of love without much thought for the consequences of doing such.
Or am I misunderstanding?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
The earthquake in Haiti may have not been love, but the response to it was definitely love. People poured their hearts into helping complete strangers. From chaos to order.
When a soldier shoots someone, that is chaos. When the revolution is over, people begin rebuilding and aiding each other, then that is love. Chaos to order.
My argument is that the love is not seen in the chaos, but is seen in contrast to the chaos. When the earthquake happens, the response is love. When the soldier shoots someone, the after math is no doubt chaos. But the response to that is love, hopefully.
When a child smells a flower, it is, as many agree, a chemical reaction to the odor given off by the flower. However, this chemical reaction describes the exchange of love that we see in our common relationships. We get the same reaction when we enjoy the company of those we appreciate or are attracted to. The concept of love is not necessarily in the things that we find chaotic, but in their contribution of chaos in bringing about a response to love.
A mother feels remorse for her son's untimely death, but is moved by the loving response of her community to act out against gang violence. A nation oppresses the minorities, but the minorities endure in peace. Then the nation is moved with compassion and shame, not only to establishing equal rights, but to offer special rights in addition to that.
I think we are easily moved by chaos, and so it makes it easy to take our eyes off the goal: love. It's hard to endure for love, but it is worth more than giving in and compromising to subside the chaos around us. The civil rights movement is a prime example. Had the segregated black people lashed out in anger, they would have been crushed. Had they backed down, they would still be trampled to this day. Their endurance for the cause of love and equality in the midst of hate and chaos is what brought order.
The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made
I have noticed that most arguments with most theists quickly result in them defending some sort of vague deism rather than the specific beliefs that they want to perpetuate. Since GENESIS has been so vague in what kind of god he (she?) is refering to, much less what kind of moral system that god supports, let's fill in that detail for him. I suppose that you can imagine that he is claiming that belief in Odin (or whichever Aesir or Vanir is your favorite one) is necessary for a moral standard to exist, and I'll imagine that he is claiming that the existence of child-hungry Moloch is necessary for their to be any form of moral standard.
I can imagine it now: "Without the existance of Moloch, how would there be any standard of child care at all? You atheists have replaced Moloch's divine commands with your arbitrary choices. Only us Moloch worshippers are the truly moral ones."
I'm not even joking really. I can't see a difference between a Moloch worshipper defining Moloch's will as being morality and the member of a more popular modern religion defining their god's will as being morality. Can a theist help me see the difference here?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
This is an intensely personal philosophy you're espousing. I'm driven to question your deification of human love while being certain you really do believe what you're saying. Of course, that does not make it true. Humans do respond well to crises. We seem to be at our best when things are at their worst. But to me that's a perfect example of characteristics shaped by evolution in a pre-history of great challenge. Sure, we look after each other but it's good - not god.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I don't want you to think that I'm deifying any human aspect. What I am doing is pointing to the 'ultimate reality' that human love and all life-giving things point to. Romans 1:20a says:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...."
This I used the girl smelling the flower as an example. The character of God, namely love, is expressed in all things made. Even in the wrathful chaos we see in the universe, the ultimate end result is life and love. Our sun, in all it's explosive fury, gives life essential radiation that allows plants to produce oxygen in response to our exhaling of carbon dioxide. What do you think about it?
The Gospel verses Religion=God-made vs. man-made
Erm...I don't get it. There are obviously situations where absolutely nothing good happens. People can live short, nasty, violent lives literally filled with nothing but misery, and there early deaths bring no-one joy or comfort. If someone with no family dies horribly in a forest and no-one knows, where is the love? When the crows eat the corpse? Or when a crack whore dumps a baby in a trashcan and no-one ever knows? Or when a species goes extinct? When a father in India dies of a simple infection and his whole family starves to death?
I do see how it can bring you comfort, because you can convince yourself that any misery has a prupose, but I don't see how that is anything but naive. It also seems self centered, since it assumes the entire universe, or at least this solar system, exists for no other reason than to perpetuate human life and express God's love to us. Given the size of the universe and how little of it supports the Human race, both in space and time, that seems...wishfull. The chances are sooner or later a rock is going to smack our ball of mud and that will be that.
I will say I like the liberal idea of God as a being of pure love better than the idea of God as a being of anger and vengeance, but I think you can make a logical defense for the latter more easily than the former given your source material.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
People of Paul's day might be excused for thinking that the universe speaks of the existence and nature of the gods but that excuse is not available to even moderately well-educated people of today. Human love and the balance of nature are adequately explained naturalistically. To try to overlay the wonders of nature with god-belief is like ordering a prime rib steak grilled to perfection and then putting ketchup on it -- it's gauche.
Reality is the graveyard of the gods.
Hi MattyB,
I am not ignoring you, but work has been a bit of a bear this week (93 hours and still going...). I enjoyed reading your responses and I will reply within the next day or so. Until then,
UE.
that's actually her point. she's demonstrating the absurdity of a typical theistic position, silly.
note how she says, "So my question to theists is this:"
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
that's actually her point. she's demonstrating the absurdity of a typical theistic position, silly.
note how she says, "So my question to theists is this:"
well I ain't your typical theist. the question suggests altruism is where notions of God are derived. I say rubbish because you atheists provide all the evidence I need. I'm sure you guys love your family and friends. They are essential to your survival. Its easy to forget however altruism is also what instigates people to go to war. They band together to do what is most beneficial to them. This has been observed in chimp behavior. They will kill members of rival groups if they feel threatened. So I'll suggest that religion limits human altruism so that we all don't kill each each other all the time for a particular population's benefit. This also means we sacrafice some love of ourselves and makes us humble which limits our carnality.