Why do you love God?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
Goodwill, compassion, empathy, sympathy, sympathetic joy, equanimity, infatuation - one can feel these for other living beings even if one lived in a in a container that would allow you to see and hear what goes on outside of it while other living beings would not know that one even exists.
There would be no reciprocation between oneself and other living beings - no recognition of eachother, no exchange of material objects, words or bodily actions - yet, one could still feel goodwill, compassion, empathy, sympathy, sympathetic joy, equanimity, infatuation (and some others too, such as anger or hate). One can feel all these things for characters in a film or a book.
And then there are relationships where the beings involved seek to do beneficial things for eachother, and also do them in the form of thoughts, words and bodily actions.
No free will. Kind of like predestination? Interesting. I like to think I'm in control, not fate, but that's just me.
You may be right though, there's no way to know.
What if both were tortured and later killed if you failed to make a decision. What then? Would you tell the kidnapper, "sorry, I don't know what to decide," and let them both suffer and die?
By the way, while hypothetical and improbable, this scenario is definetly POSSIBLE. So what's your call Reiku?
You ready to let them both suffer and die?
You may be right though, there's no way to know.
What if both were tortured and later killed if you failed to make a decision. What then? Would you tell the kidnapper, "sorry, I don't know what to decide," and let them both suffer and die?
By the way, while hypothetical and improbable, this scenario is definetly POSSIBLE. So what's your call Reiku?
You ready to let them both suffer and die?
Please describe the reciprocation between yourself and nature/life.
How exactly does nature benefit from what you give it or take from it?
He was quoting scripture.
Would you do the same if someone deliberately drove over a rat, or a rabid dog, or a snake that just bit you?
Are you a vegetarian?
I'd love to believe that!
service has wider applications than mere bowing (although for some it might be a humble beginning).
If you can talk of loving something without being inspired to "do" something for the beloved, that would seem absolutely detached and mental
It's important to note that in order to love someone, one first has to know them.
If one doesn't know that person - their name, what they do, what they are like, how they and we are related ... - then the whole issue of what it means to love that person becomes moot.
So it is my understanding that it is impossible to "love God" or to know anything practically applicable about loving God, without first having some understanding of who/what God is.
Option A of course
Love is the strongest form of attachment
Of course there is the issue of loving god which extends a type of attachment that cannot be broken at all.
In other words there is an aspect of transcendental knowledge where one becomes fearless of death, simply because they clearly see the body as temporary. For instance when socrates was to be poisoned by his captors in a jail, his closing remarks were "first you have to catch me" before he took the poison.
BG 2.23 The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.
From such a standpoint, what do you suppose such a person can actually do to the soul?
acting like a human punching bag is not an "eastern teaching"
the material world is taught to be temporary, not an illusion (in the radical sense)
The idea is that it doesn't belong to us. Rather, our treatment of this world, this body and all the rest, determines our character, and that character plays a great role in our spiritual future.
(IOW acting like an asshole doesn't manifest great eternal rewards)
you are right in one sense
universal annihilation is beyond us
we can do heaps however to make our own lives and the lives of others unnecessarily unpleasant however
meanwhile your drinking water becomes carcinogenic
Emnos
“
And as a further point, the higher you go up the scale, the more potential it has for greatness.
as for the awe inspiring and interesting, that is more an issue of wonder than love (and yes, wonder does play a part in love, but love is also more sublime)
Its quite clear.
The reason you "love" nature is because you "love" your own life.
thats ok
most (sane) people do
My point is however that nature is merely a stage or background for whatever you love, and not an object of love.
I'm sure it wouldn't take too much imagination to come up with a list of things that would make you exhilarated (or alternatively, manically depressed) while nature could be running along just perfectly in the background.
so how does nature reciprocate with you in a way that she doesn't reciprocate with others?
but I am just curious about your views on the subject
its a how the theme of nature has been treated in western culture for the past 500 years ... and it contrasts to views of nature in eastern theology, or even arguably western theology if you look at the roots. I think you would be hard pressed to frame that statement as controversial.
for instance if my wife has brown eyes and I find them a lovable quality, I find them lovable because they are hers.... the value of brown eyes simply lies in the connection to her.
If you want to kill/don't like/like/love a person, that tends to arise from how they treat you (and as a further detail, that may arise from how you treat them)
“
“
Actually I was explaining how love primarily finds its expression in one of 4 relationships (servitorship, friendship, parental and conjugal) and that service plays a key part in all 4.
And as a further point, the higher you go up the scale, the more potential it has for greatness.
I am denying that love can exist in a complete vacuum of knowledge about the beloved. I mean if I wrote a poem about how much I love people in rural china and you found out that I had lived my entire life in NYC, what would you think?
notice how you refer to nature in reference to "I" ("I need it to stay alive" "I am part of it") ....
as for the awe inspiring and interesting, that is more an issue of wonder than love (and yes, wonder does play a part in love, but love is also more sublime)
as already mentioned, you already referred to a person who loves a chair as insane, so these ideas are obviously not alien to you
yet you can't indicate it outside of "I"
and especially how it houses your life
Its quite clear.
The reason you "love" nature is because you "love" your own life.
thats ok
most (sane) people do
My point is however that nature is merely a stage or background for whatever you love, and not an object of love.
I'm sure it wouldn't take too much imagination to come up with a list of things that would make you exhilarated (or alternatively, manically depressed) while nature could be running along just perfectly in the background.
ok
so how does nature reciprocate with you in a way that she doesn't reciprocate with others?
sure
but I am just curious about your views on the subject
no
its a how the theme of nature has been treated in western culture for the past 500 years ... and it contrasts to views of nature in eastern theology, or even arguably western theology if you look at the roots. I think you would be hard pressed to frame that statement as controversial.
yes, but god is the dynamic that makes that love work
for instance if my wife has brown eyes and I find them a lovable quality, I find them lovable because they are hers.... the value of brown eyes simply lies in the connection to her.
Maybe we could use the word "treats" instead of service.
If you want to kill/don't like/like/love a person, that tends to arise from how they treat you (and as a further detail, that may arise from how you treat them)
Assuming that you were after the result of that person not doing such acts again, I guess you could analyze whether that was the best way to instigate such a state of being. Argumentum ad baculum tends to be the last recourse, although effective in particular time, places and circumstances.
“
Atheists love God too. A creator god in some sense, for without Him I would not be an atheist. I'm thinking that the idea of God has done more for creating atheists than the other way around. It's at least something tangible, I can put my finger on it, figuratively speaking. I have no trouble with the idea of God, it is human ingenuity, maybe not our most crowning achievement but a product of our imaginative skills and our constant yearning for the truth. So ya, thanks God. Love the idea. Made me what I am today and I'm grateful.
Parts of it are getting better. But did you know that a sixth of it are living in a single brutal authoritarian regime? That there's an entire continent of people where the average lifespan is only 30 years? Fucking a, get a clue kid. The world's nasty. It's debatable if it's any better.
In fact, in terms of proportions, I'd hazard that the world is just as bad now as it was in the 16th century. I mean, what, only 10% of the world enjoys our standard of living? Same deal back then.
An occupied country recovering from a civil war set up by the Colonials less than a century ago?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Neither IS option A.