hehe
Why do you love God?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
hehe
How about when kids are brutally raped by people. What's the purpose of little kids being brutally raped by child molesters? I'm sure those little kids did something to deserve being molested and raped, right LG? That's absurd, and you know it.
How about all those people who drowned from tsunamis. I'm sure they did something to deserve that, right?
How about the holocaust? That had purpose, right LG? All the people getting burned alive, shot in the gut, gas chambered, raped, etc. The Jews deserved it. That's absurd.
Are you seriously ready to say that no uneccessary suffering occurs, ever? I hope not.
Last edited:
In short, the only way suffering is unnecessary is when we go about things unnecessarily to suffer
I deal with this in detail in the OP of this thread
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71803
LG, let's get real. Okay, so we all have eternal spirits. Doesn't change the fact that we all can suffer greatly while in these physical bodies.
When someone feels pain in a dream, which does happen, even though the dream is not real the pain is undoubtedly real. Just because our physical bodies are an illusion, we still experience the pain and suffering. There's no getting around it.
If someone kidnapped you and brutally raped and or tortured you, you would experience a great deal of suffering. THE EXPERIENCE IS REAL. Even though you are fundamentally a spirit, you are still trapped in your body and are bound to the rules of this material universe. YOU CAN'T MAGICALLY LEAVE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY DURING SUFFERING. YOU ARE FORCED TO ENDURE IT.
For you to argue that there is never unneccessary suffering is really absurd. But I don't think you really believe that.
When someone feels pain in a dream, which does happen, even though the dream is not real the pain is undoubtedly real. Just because our physical bodies are an illusion, we still experience the pain and suffering. There's no getting around it.
If someone kidnapped you and brutally raped and or tortured you, you would experience a great deal of suffering. THE EXPERIENCE IS REAL. Even though you are fundamentally a spirit, you are still trapped in your body and are bound to the rules of this material universe. YOU CAN'T MAGICALLY LEAVE YOUR PHYSICAL BODY DURING SUFFERING. YOU ARE FORCED TO ENDURE IT.
For you to argue that there is never unneccessary suffering is really absurd. But I don't think you really believe that.
Last edited:
I Love God because God loves me.
Its very simple.
People just cant see the simplicity because they spend their entire lives trying to find a way to convince themselves that God isn't there.
I'm not preaching or saying everyone else is wrong, but to me, its simple.
Take a look around you. God Created it, We live in it, and we created our own reality.
Of course if the ability to Love God is too far away for one to comprehend, then one could always try kallabah or scientology.
Or become a muslim or a suicide bomber and get to "heavan" that way.
Me, I prefer the ten commandments and to Love my God.
Woo! Man thats a lot of stress off my plate, saved, saved from not just sin which I'm no doubt guilty of, but saved from a heap of bullshit which gets us into sinning and wondering why God wont help us.
my 2c.
Its very simple.
People just cant see the simplicity because they spend their entire lives trying to find a way to convince themselves that God isn't there.
I'm not preaching or saying everyone else is wrong, but to me, its simple.
Take a look around you. God Created it, We live in it, and we created our own reality.
Of course if the ability to Love God is too far away for one to comprehend, then one could always try kallabah or scientology.
Or become a muslim or a suicide bomber and get to "heavan" that way.
Me, I prefer the ten commandments and to Love my God.
Woo! Man thats a lot of stress off my plate, saved, saved from not just sin which I'm no doubt guilty of, but saved from a heap of bullshit which gets us into sinning and wondering why God wont help us.
my 2c.
Why do you think God loves you? Or how do you know God loves you, let alone exists?
Also, if God loves everyone on this planet, why would he allow so much pointless suffering, like young kids being raped?
What if you were born and raised in China as a Buddhist, taught that God doesn't exist? Would God still love you, and would you still love God?
Also, if God loves everyone on this planet, why would he allow so much pointless suffering, like young kids being raped?
What if you were born and raised in China as a Buddhist, taught that God doesn't exist? Would God still love you, and would you still love God?
Last edited:
From one deluded mind to another:
Well, it's all a delusion of sorts anyway.. so why not delude yourself into a loving relationship with 'your creator' *snort* as if 'create' is a term to be applie to the origin of species. As if will is something that makes sense outside our potentially paultry human reference frame. Lol. So paultry the majority of the species anthropomorphizes 'the unknown' into a substanative aspect of their lives. Seems 'fledgling' at best. Yet we... in all our arrogance, tend to say we know of such things that we define as inherently beyond us. Lol, we define it and defy the ramifications of the definition because we cannot see them or more humanly, we ignore them to avoid disengaging from the emotional attachment we have with our most important ideas.
Indeed.
Projection is such a powerful evasive tool. You dissallow other possibilities by conveniently ignoring them and stand warranted in your authoratative conclusion. You imagine what it must be like for you to have to not believe for whatever reason, and it seems a struggle to you. You can't understand how it could be so easy not to believe or as you probably think of it disbelieve. It's funny that in missing this you do the same as those you accuse. They can't imagine what it's like to spend a bunch of time, effort and thought into thinking about 'god', a concept so retarded to them that they simply can't imagine anyone 'buying it', like a bunch of retarded sheep trying to convince them they're not retarded via repetetive bleats, spitting and stamping at the ground.
They can't see. You can't see. You're both part of the same system with different beliefs and hold one another as beneath each other in some way because neither can relate to the mindset of the other. You can't relate to the mindset because well, basically you lack imagination and/or empathy or the will to exert it. Methinks this indicates a closer lineage with apes than almost any human would condescend to admit. Dull brutes, the lot of them. Well, at least you.
Nah it's probably me.
No you are preaching and saying everyone is wrong, but you don't like the thought of yourself in that context so you pretend it isn't happening. That is exactly what you're doing.
Bleat bleat stamp.
You admit you're a simpleton who can't think for themself... as you with your apparent authority, prescribe to the other simpletons your recommendations for enlightenment? It's more important to expand your reference frame to include the co-existence of all beliefs and attempt to undrestand why they are believed, no? Yes. Er... well no I suppose if you can't then you won't. You're not there. You're in love with your delusion as we all are, you just personify it and talk about it as a person because thats what you learned to do to deal with living. It's like your own personal ERP. You split off part of your brain to call 'god', give it an indepdent psuedo personality and dump off your primary control systems to its control so you simply don't have to deal with them directly. You can just manage the aggregate that flows forth from your self-applied conceptual lobotamy.
It's sad and kind of cool at the same time that we're so easily programmable. I doubt it would really take that much to get you into a nice explosive jacket, so long as it was for god's love. Sure you might argue god wouldn't do that... but you sound primed for justifications to the contrary if offered by a sufficiently clever and talented manipulator.
Of course you do. You simply can't relate to anything else. Why would you want to? *sigh* You trickster of you, you. It's all good though. I'm glad it makes you happy. Afterall, I honestly think that's what really counts in the end (seriously). I suppose that makes me a hedonist.
Just plug in, and worship! You go boy. G'luck.
Well, it's all a delusion of sorts anyway.. so why not delude yourself into a loving relationship with 'your creator' *snort* as if 'create' is a term to be applie to the origin of species. As if will is something that makes sense outside our potentially paultry human reference frame. Lol. So paultry the majority of the species anthropomorphizes 'the unknown' into a substanative aspect of their lives. Seems 'fledgling' at best. Yet we... in all our arrogance, tend to say we know of such things that we define as inherently beyond us. Lol, we define it and defy the ramifications of the definition because we cannot see them or more humanly, we ignore them to avoid disengaging from the emotional attachment we have with our most important ideas.
Indeed.
Projection is such a powerful evasive tool. You dissallow other possibilities by conveniently ignoring them and stand warranted in your authoratative conclusion. You imagine what it must be like for you to have to not believe for whatever reason, and it seems a struggle to you. You can't understand how it could be so easy not to believe or as you probably think of it disbelieve. It's funny that in missing this you do the same as those you accuse. They can't imagine what it's like to spend a bunch of time, effort and thought into thinking about 'god', a concept so retarded to them that they simply can't imagine anyone 'buying it', like a bunch of retarded sheep trying to convince them they're not retarded via repetetive bleats, spitting and stamping at the ground.
They can't see. You can't see. You're both part of the same system with different beliefs and hold one another as beneath each other in some way because neither can relate to the mindset of the other. You can't relate to the mindset because well, basically you lack imagination and/or empathy or the will to exert it. Methinks this indicates a closer lineage with apes than almost any human would condescend to admit. Dull brutes, the lot of them. Well, at least you.
Nah it's probably me.No you are preaching and saying everyone is wrong, but you don't like the thought of yourself in that context so you pretend it isn't happening. That is exactly what you're doing.
Bleat bleat stamp.
You admit you're a simpleton who can't think for themself... as you with your apparent authority, prescribe to the other simpletons your recommendations for enlightenment? It's more important to expand your reference frame to include the co-existence of all beliefs and attempt to undrestand why they are believed, no? Yes. Er... well no I suppose if you can't then you won't. You're not there. You're in love with your delusion as we all are, you just personify it and talk about it as a person because thats what you learned to do to deal with living. It's like your own personal ERP. You split off part of your brain to call 'god', give it an indepdent psuedo personality and dump off your primary control systems to its control so you simply don't have to deal with them directly. You can just manage the aggregate that flows forth from your self-applied conceptual lobotamy.
It's sad and kind of cool at the same time that we're so easily programmable. I doubt it would really take that much to get you into a nice explosive jacket, so long as it was for god's love. Sure you might argue god wouldn't do that... but you sound primed for justifications to the contrary if offered by a sufficiently clever and talented manipulator.
Of course you do. You simply can't relate to anything else. Why would you want to? *sigh* You trickster of you, you. It's all good though. I'm glad it makes you happy. Afterall, I honestly think that's what really counts in the end (seriously). I suppose that makes me a hedonist.
Just plug in, and worship! You go boy. G'luck.
but it does indicate that we have previous karma, even if we are currently a 2 year old child or whetever
the point is whether we have acted in such a way previously to warrant receiving such pain
so the question arises whether this is a suffering that is meted out to me due to my past deeds
Suffering in this world is as necessary as the suffering involved in eating 3kg of deep fried potato. The universe acts in accordance with laws and if you transgress them you get a reaction.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I disagree. See your examples below.
Indeed. Different colors..
Wtf ? lol
Look at your own description.
Besides, did I not say that I have trouble expressing it in words ?
The problem lies with your definition of love.
When you talk about love I have no choice but to apply your definition to it, no ?
So when you talk about loving a chair, to me it means loving a chair in the same way as you love your wife but somewhat less.
This is crazy.
I don't know what this means.
You think I cannot talk about love without including myself ? Somehow.. ?
Huh ?
Your mind is so alien to me that I am in doubt as to what you mean half the time.
Let me put it this way (hypothetical):
If I were given the choices
1. Kill yourself and life* on Earth will thrive.
2. Kill all life* on Earth and you will thrive, be rich beyond believe, have absolute knowledge etc etc whatever you can come up with (maybe essentially be God).
I would quite happily pick option 1.
If you substitute "yourself" and option 1. and "you" in option 2. for "humankind" the answer will still be the same.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
No. Can you indicate your existence separate from God ?
I wouldn't say unique, but (as it seems) relatively rare.
People such as yourself are too blind to see it.. apparently.
Would you say a chair is a natural object ? What about nuclear reactors ? :bugeye:
Or from your point of view, did God create any chairs ?
I don't think you understood what I meant there, which isn't surprising.. I should have clarified.
To me it is depressing when you assert that love is only possible through God or because of God.
What would happen to you when you lost your faith ??
And finally, what does that say about any kind of love an atheist might entertain, from your viewpoint ?
So you are saying that I can't possibly love nature because I am an atheist..
LOL
It's all black and white with you huh ?
What would give the desired result ?
And you should know that I am not at all a violent person. I have never attacked anyone before.
My answers to those questions were more like what I want to than what I really would do.
But I am not saying I won't attack the bastard when I happen to come across an incident like described, I might flip.
No, I am saying you are in ignorance of nature. I don't know how else to explain your lack of love for nature.
"Persons like me" refers to people that love nature.
"Persons like you" refers to people that don't love nature. Of which some are human supremacists.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Which posts specifically ?
God knows !
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
lol ok..
Sometimes I "worry" some of my views will be perceived as being too extreme.
I really don't know where I stand with them in relation with others as as don't speak about them in depth with people in real life.
You are worrying unnecessarily. Your views are clear and, in any event, this is not the place for an in-depth discussion.
In he present instance we are talking about an emotional response called love. It has many shades of meaning but it is always directed at some person or object. It may or may not be reciprocated. It is also an involuntary response. I do not look at an object and decide to love it; it just happens. After the event I can rationalize my emotion if it is necessary to do so.
There are religious groups who artificially work themselves into a frenzy by chanting, reciting mantras and so on until they love of feel at one with whatever is the object of their attention. This can scarcely be regarded as love in the sense we normally talk about it.
In my view, LG comes along and confuses what is essentially a straightforward idea with a need for service, reciprocity and so on. He cannot leve well alone.
I can love Nature because of the feelgood factor it engenders but it would be foolish to expect Natureto love me back. Nature is indifferent to my feelings. A sunset will be as it is whether I am looking at it or not. It is foolish to talk of reciptocity in this situation. I am getting something back but only in the sense that my brain is responding emotionally to what I am observing.That is why I can say I love Nature.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I agree.
Only the part about reciprocity has me confused.
Reciprocity is, as far as I know, a mutual exchange of which both parties benefit.
There is nothing in the definition of reciprocity that says the exchange must be conscious.
Now I admit that I can't give much back, but I can try.
It is also difficult to imagine nature benefiting from what I do, until you break nature up in parts.
One can be beneficial to a particular environment, or species.
Emnos
“
“
You say you love nature
I say I love a chair
so what do you think?
How about if someone says they love air?
“
“
if the living entity didn't have minute independence there would be absolutely no question of loving god
I mean if you can't see anything of Gumpy Gazza the guitarist I can fill you in on a few things
supernatural?
You could perhaps argue that a nuclear reactor is artificial arrangement, but it doesn't house anything that isn't natural.
A nuclear reactor is not something "nature" (or god) cannot deal with, what to speak of a chair.
Is a stone that can be utilized as a chair somehow more lovable than a chair that is made from slapping a few bits of wood together? Or alternatively, is there something about a stone chair that qualifies it for love in obvious ways that can't be applied to a wooden chair?
I would probably take the default position like everyone else and simply view nature in terms that is agreeable to my lifestyle (whether that be in the form of sustainable agriculture or the production of nuclear bombs)
nature or just love in general?
“
I am saying no one can love nature, just like in the sense that no one can love a dress (they might like the person wearing it however, but since an atheist has an official stance that there is no person behind nature, that possibility doesn't arise) ... they may like the dress however, and be able to come up with quite a few good points on how they could utilize it... or even how their way to utilize it is unique and more sensitive than any other person's plans to utilize it ..... IOW the clear distinction is that the theist has the option of viewing the world as being possessed by someone else - namely god - whereas others simply have views on how they can get their greasy or not quite so greasy paws on it
that's understandable
“
You have yet to provide some sort of run down on nature that isn't simply an elaboration on how wonderful it is that it houses the human phenomena
“
I see them but i don't see your point
I thought I made it very clear at the onset that there is a specific etymological usage of the word I was working with(and I even conceded the etymological usage you were going with) ... I mean to come midway with "different strokes for different folks" philosophy isn't really helpful
“
ordinarily love doesn't experience that difficulty in these cases ... I mean if a person can't rattle off at least a dozen things that they love about something it tend to raise doubts
you also have the option of invalidating it through analysis or example.
actually it was a response to your claim of loving nature.
You say you love nature
I say I love a chair
so what do you think?
How about if someone says they love air?
“
It means that if something is simply a means to your end (and cannot be indicated separate from your existence) you have no scope for entering into a relationship with it
its certainly difficult in regards to nature ... that's why I ask
“
it's not clear how either choice ties into love
sure
if the living entity didn't have minute independence there would be absolutely no question of loving god
well feel free to qualify it.
I mean if you can't see anything of Gumpy Gazza the guitarist I can fill you in on a few things
if a chair or a nuclear reactor isn't natural what is it?
supernatural?
You could perhaps argue that a nuclear reactor is artificial arrangement, but it doesn't house anything that isn't natural.
A nuclear reactor is not something "nature" (or god) cannot deal with, what to speak of a chair.
Is a stone that can be utilized as a chair somehow more lovable than a chair that is made from slapping a few bits of wood together? Or alternatively, is there something about a stone chair that qualifies it for love in obvious ways that can't be applied to a wooden chair?
well that's a bit of a no-brainer coming from an atheist
in regards to nature and its connection to god?
I would probably take the default position like everyone else and simply view nature in terms that is agreeable to my lifestyle (whether that be in the form of sustainable agriculture or the production of nuclear bombs)
love for what?
nature or just love in general?
“
no
I am saying no one can love nature, just like in the sense that no one can love a dress (they might like the person wearing it however, but since an atheist has an official stance that there is no person behind nature, that possibility doesn't arise) ... they may like the dress however, and be able to come up with quite a few good points on how they could utilize it... or even how their way to utilize it is unique and more sensitive than any other person's plans to utilize it ..... IOW the clear distinction is that the theist has the option of viewing the world as being possessed by someone else - namely god - whereas others simply have views on how they can get their greasy or not quite so greasy paws on it
if you mean is it relatively clear how to cultivate a loving relationship with someone, then yes
I can't think of anything that could give the desired result. Maybe try and reason with them after the act to fan any ambers of remorse ... but its not like we are omnipotent beings that can establish any result from any circumstance. That is god's prerogative, not ours.
sure
that's understandable
just like you may be in ignorance of gumpy gazza, but just let me tell you a thing or two about him ....
“
given that I have clearly stated several times now that the problem is not that "I don't love nature" (which is a value statement) but rather you haven't presented a basis for making value statements (which would allow for the terms of either love/or don't love), why do you think these categories are accurate?
You have yet to provide some sort of run down on nature that isn't simply an elaboration on how wonderful it is that it houses the human phenomena
We can give something back in the sense that we respect our environment, for example, but Nature cannot be aware of this. This doesn't matter a damn.
The point I am making is that, unlike the guy with the attention-seeking avatar, I do not regard love as being conditional on service, reciprocity or anything of the kind. Love is an emotion and it is natural to want to take care of that which we love. There are no conditions.