11 of 26
11
i am a born again, evangelical christian
Posted: 05 May 2009 05:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
fotobits - 05 May 2009 05:01 AM

I have often wondered how someone who values humility could claim to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. Happens all the time.

Excellent observation.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 06:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Helen - 04 May 2009 10:52 PM

Adonai - since you love learning from the internet try this site:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

I don’t understand why you keep relying on a thelogical website to study science.

hi Helen

godandscience website is, as its name says, a site about science AND God. The presented scientific claims are backed up with links and references to other scientists as well. If the presented scientific facts at this site are not correct, please show it. Beside this, i do rely not only on this site, but also on number of other ones.

.

I recommend that you get yourself some real books written by real experts. You know - the kind you hold in your hands and turn pages. And instead of being hung up on a few tired old arguments, broaden your horizons. Try reading up on anthropology, history of religion, comparative religion..

thanks for the advice. But don’t worry, i do that wink

I heartily recommend Dan Barker’s “Losing Faith in Faith,” and John Loftus’ “Why I Became an Atheist.” Both books were written by former EVANGELICAL ministers.

why should i read these books ? i have absolutely NO intention to become a atheist. the atheistic standpoint looks to me completely unrealistic , a hypothese, which i discart categorically. I am a christian for over twenty years, and learned enough lessons, i do experience God in my daily life. How could i deny his existence ?

 

The word of God , the bible - the creator’s best gift to man.

[ Edited: 05 May 2009 06:37 AM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 06:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
dougsmith - 05 May 2009 04:56 AM

Actually, the truth is quite a bit stronger. The issue, however, is what we mean by the word “transcend”, which is a typically obscure. The obvious, clear interpretation of the word would be that something which transcends spacetime exists outside of spacetime. That is, it exists without spatiotemporal properties.

Anything that exists without spatiotemporal properties cannot be a person; that is, it cannot be a conscious being. In order to be conscious, one at least (conceptually) needs to exist in time. Conscious experiences are, by their very nature, temporal. Persons have beliefs and desires, and perform actions. Beliefs, desires and actions all must occur in time.

One can support the idea of a god who exists without spatiotemporal properties, but it would be a form of abstractum, like the number seven, or the form of an equilateral triangle. (These are the sorts of things that could exist without spatiotemporal properties). That is, this form of god is a deistic, spinozistic or einsteinian God. It could not be the personal God of prayer. Anything that exists outside of spacetime cannot be aware of or respond to prayer, since prayer by its very nature is temporal.

hi Doug

i suggest you read following homepage, which will explain the Extradimensional Nature of God

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html

observe also the references given at the site.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 06:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2457
Joined  2008-06-03
Adonai888 - 05 May 2009 06:10 AM
Helen - 04 May 2009 10:52 PM

I heartily recommend Dan Barker’s “Losing Faith in Faith,” and John Loftus’ “Why I Became an Atheist.” Both books were written by former EVANGELICAL ministers.

why should i read these books ? i have absolutely NO intention to become a atheist. the atheistic standpoint looks to me completely unrealistic , a hypothese, which i discart categorically. I am a christian for over twenty years, and learned enough lessons, i do experience God in my daily life. How could i deny his existence ?

The word of God , the bible - the creator’s best gift to man.

Why should you read these books? Perhaps you should read again your first message on this forum, where you expressed curiosity on the subject and said that you sought to understand why someone would choose to be an atheist. I don’t understand why you would ask this question, and then when someone directs you to excellent books about the subject of which you inquire, you dismiss them.

It seems you did not come here to learn ANYTHING at all. You came here saying you were curious about atheists, yet when people share personal experience and discuss the scientific evidence that led them to this life path you plug your fingers in your ears. 

You have no intention of learning anything about, or from, atheists.  It’s a shame, and it is frustrating. There are wonderful people here reaching out to you. It appears you came here to toy with them, perhaps out of boredom.

 Signature 

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.    - Lex Luthor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 06:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Your links are very annoying, Angelo. But at least there is now hope that this way you will kill less trees to produce your “creator’s best gift to man.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 06:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
Adonai888 - 05 May 2009 06:36 AM

i suggest you read following homepage, which will explain the Extradimensional Nature of God

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html

observe also the references given at the site.

So there should be empirical evidence: equivalents of your points, lines and squares. Tell us. Not from the bible, it is too easy to write a book that says ‘I contain the truth!’

“I was not sure about God anymore. But then, I met Santa Clause. And he said: “Yes, there is a God”, and my faith was restored for I knew Santa Clause would never lie to me.”

Tell us about your experiences with God. And how we can repeat these experiences.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 07:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7573
Joined  2007-03-02
asanta - 04 May 2009 10:42 PM

Anyway, I can’t see anything different happening here. It would be nice if just once a theist comes to our board and actually responds to our posts instead of throwing out dogma in the form of URLs.

I know one who probably would, but I haven’t challenged her in that respect to really know.  Her daughter has a degree in biology and very gifted, so the two together would be a challenge.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 07:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
Adonai888 - 05 May 2009 06:36 AM

suggest you read following homepage, which will explain the Extradimensional Nature of God

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html

observe also the references given at the site.

The essay on this site is confused, and irrelevant to the points I was making. You really should read what I write and respond yourself rather than lazily copying irrelevancies. Several issues:

(1) “The God of the Bible is described as omnipotent.” : We have already discussed the problems with that claim, none of which have been adequately discharged. Viz., if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he is also not perfectly good.

(2) “If God were confined to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, then He could be in only one place at one time.” : I did not claim that God was confined to three dimensions of space. If you re-read what I said, I was talking only about time.

(3) “If God existed in only one dimension of time, then He would have had to have been created at one point. The Bible says God was not created, but has existed from eternity past to eternity future.” : This is sheer nonsense. If God has temporal properties, he could very well exist at all points in time; if time is infinite in length into the past and into the future, then God could have had all those temporal properties. But he would have to exist in time to do so.

(4) “The Bible also suggests God created time and was acting before time began, confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. In addition, the Bible states God can compress or expand our time line ...” At most this would imply that God exists at a higher dimensional timeline than ours (so called “hypertime”), however in order to act in our time he would have to have our temporal properties as well. However, the quotes he provides are fairytales, as credible as Dorothy flying to Oz. They are patent reasons to believe that the authors of the Bible were not credible witnesses, but rather novelists with overactive imaginations.

(5) “The Bible says the universe cannot contain Him.” This is an incorrect gloss on the quote that Deem himself provides, viz., “the highest heavens cannot contain Thee”. There is nothing here about time or about spacetime. The only claim here is about “the highest heavens”. Where are they? Since they are “the highest” they aren’t all the heavens. This Deem man simply hasn’t read his Bible carefully. The science he is quoting is irrelevant to the quotes he provides.

It’s quite a pathetic webpage. I wonder if you actually read it over ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 159 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  324
Joined  2009-04-23

Amazing!  I think a lot of what falls into the cracks happens to be exactly what Christians have no way to debate.  Angelo, I went to your link.  So lets start there:

·  God created us in order to love Him, and for Him to love us.   That comment alone made me wonder.  I’m a mother, and I didn’t have a child so that he could love me.  I love my child despite whether or not he chooses to love me.  I do not require his love in order to love him.  I had no conditions that I put on him from birth.  Just from the stand point of my morality, I’m less selfish than god as it is laid out by your link.


·  The nature of love requires some sort of choice (to love or not to love); love can not be forced.
·  This choice gives us the capability to choose the opposite: hatred
  By the logic provided in the first statement the nature of every verb is a choice, ie jump or not to jump, debate or not debate, the only point that it makes is that love can be a verb.  However, “love can not be forced” is odd coming from someone who believes in god.  Is god not all-powerful?  Didn’t god create love?  Love isn’t a force beyond god, is it?  The second point is a false one.  Hatred is not the opposite of love.  I’m afraid a lot of ignorance went into that statement.  Think about who you hate in your life.  Is there no one in your family that you hate?  Hate can be intrinsically linked to love.  I have a very big family, and I hate some of them, but it comes from hurt.  Hate isn’t the opposite of love; hate is one of many possible consequences of love.


·  Much of the suffering in the world comes from humanity’s misuse of the freedom God gave us.
·  When sin entered into the world, through man’s disobedience, it sent creation in a new direction of both moral and natural evil (diseases, earthquakes and accidents).
·  God can turn the evil choices we make into positive results.
  The point that was made regarding free will and the suffering god allows is not satiated by your web link.  The heart of the issue is that you believe god is some type of innocent bystander allowing us to make decisions that will lead us toward him or away into pain.  I get what you are saying, and that is exactly why I reject it.  “Man’s disobedience” is a nice tidy term to explain that, according to your bible, god put Adam and Eve, arguably newborns in the stance of maturity, in a garden and said not to touch one particular tree.  If you put any kid, even a teenager, in a room filled with toys and said, “you can have every toy but this one,” you’re an idiot if you blame the kid for playing with the forbidden toy.  Not only did god blame Adam and Eve, he allowed his creation, according to your link and bible, to fall toward a “natural evil” because of it.  In what way does that make any sense?  How can an all-powerful, all-knowing god allow that?  And didn’t he see it coming? 

So your free will counterpoint via web link does not hold up to doug’s original point.
The standard claim for the existence of evil caused by free will is that free will entails that evil will happen.
But all one needs to do is point out that the same theology which makes that claim also makes an existence claim for a realm in which there is free will but no evil: namely, heaven.

Next lets tackle Herbert Spencer.  It surprises me that a self-described evangelical would be paying any heed to the thoughts of Herbert Spencer.  His work was an attempt to find a compromise between religion and science.  Trying to marry the two through a philosophy heavily grounded in his acceptance of the newly budding scientific research of his time.  An evangelical christian of his time would have readily denounced him; but, then again, maybe you are not a fundamentalist.  Regardless, (I’ve got to stop using that, I feel I’ve used that word too much) as Chris had mentioned, we are now aware (thanks to Einstein) that space and time are one.  And what of force and action, in what way are these two separate things?  Is the force the actor and the action the result of his/her/its actions?  Or is the action you speak of the choice of the force?  Is this as simple as noun and verb?  It gets dicey going back through scientific theories and trying to pluck those pieces which bolster your claim.  Irregardless, (that’s better) the claim can be updated to spacetime, matter (some would include dark matter), and energy (some would include dark energy).  The action is a verb chosen by us to describe the effects of the energy on the matter and is hardly necessary as a category by which to understand the reality of the universe.  That being said, what does this have to do with why there is a god?  Your argument seems to be akin to the bible code or someone similar to that guy on Beautiful Mind perusing the bible looking for connections.  You lost me on this one:

You don’t take in account that the bible is not a scientific book. Just the fact is relevant and remarkable, that Genesis 1 actually names all 5 elements, which do describe all what exists. And it took a looooong time, until Spencer made his description in the 19th century. It might not be as scientifically well described, as science is able today, but in “ grosso modo “ Spencer was right, and should anyone really make to think, how the bible could be so accurate in describe all that exists, that much time ago.

It is as if you are looking at a Rorschach blob and you are trying to get us to see something that is not necessarily there.  Maybe try again, or not.

could you point me out, where the bible says, that God does blame children for the sins of their ancestors ?

The point people are making to you is how unfair the original sin declaration is from god.  We are all damned by Adam and Eve, that seems wrong.  Another point, what about in Genesis when Noah is drunk and naked in the vineyard?  Son A tells son B and son B goes to cover up his naked, drunken father.  Noah awakes and condemns son A into serving son B, but then goes so far as to require all of son A’s descendants to serve son B’s descendants.  The bible is full of stories like that were any unbiased reader would find fault with the morality of the lessons within it.

Considering all evidence, i don’t see any reason NOT to believe in Gods existence. I actually think, that most atheist do not believe with a reasonable base , but out of their wish, not to have any God above them, that eventually could interfere in their life with rools etc.

I do not find you at all sincere with your inquiry here or your statement about not wanting to convert but just testify.  What is the point of testifying if not to convert?  Who are you testifying to and what is the purpose of it?  I think you are very ignorant as to the beliefs of atheists.  If you wish to learn the rational of atheists, then try reading some of the many books by Dawkins or Hitchens.  But I don’t believe you wish to know the rational.  Knowing this would preclude you having an open mind.  I do not believe you have one. I concur with what Randy says:

Testifying your faith is not debating, not logic, and not science.  If you’re here, you should be challenging your faith.  It seems clear to me that you’ve simply come here in an attempt to convert people, rather than have an honest discussion.

So what is your motivation for coming to this forum, if not to convert some heathens?  Please explain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 07:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 160 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7573
Joined  2007-03-02
Adonai888 - 05 May 2009 06:36 AM

hi Doug

i suggest you read following homepage, which will explain the Extradimensional Nature of God

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html

observe also the references given at the site.

Apologetics.  Nice.  I’m not Doug of course, but shall we talk about the demiurge while we are at it too?  Oh that’s right, you probably don’t know what a demiurge is.  The Tao has a saying that goes something like this:  Those who say don’t know and those who know don’t say.  I will say this, most people who worship a deity are generally worshiping the Demiurge.  Those who come to their senses eventually realize that isn’t a god at all and they’ve been living Oz the whole time.

I’ve spent more years studying and researching various religions and mythologies than you have knowledge about your own religion in your little pinky and I can give you a list of non-apologists who I have either studied under or inquired of over the years.  Apologists only serve to keep people in the delusion and rarely give any critical analysis of said religion.  I personally have no use for apologists.

BTW, demiurge and Taoism are two different belief systems.  Just in case you don’t know.

[ Edited: 05 May 2009 07:35 AM by Mriana ]
 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 161 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  324
Joined  2009-04-23
Mriana - 05 May 2009 07:30 AM

I’ve spent more years studying and researching various religions and mythologies than you have knowledge about your own religion in your little pinky and I can give you a list of non-apologists who I have either studied under or inquired of over the years. 

That is the perfect explanation for why this thread is like beating your head against a wall.  Most of us can say that we have arrived at our beliefs, because of all of the time we have spent in research mode. 

Angelo, what you don’t understand is that all of the websites you refer to and the bible are well know positions.  We have read and discarded them through actual debate and research.  You, however, say that you will not read any books to the contrary, because you do not want to become an atheist.  I think you show a major weakness here.  You should not be afraid to listen and learn the view points of those that differ from you.  Knowledge only makes you stronger.  I first read the bible when I was 11, and have read it completely 2 times since then.  I am not afraid to debate you, but you do not seem interested in debate.  That is fine, but then your representation at the beginning of this thread was fraudulent.  If you feel that you are ready for honest debate, then you should be able to engage in thorough research in both areas of the debate. 

I’m personally not big on trying to juxtapose science and religion.  Science is fact and religion is conjecture.  I have always been more into looking at god as he is depicted in the bible, and holding him/her up to his/her own moral compass.  God, as depicted in the bible, is not just.  If there was an all-powerful being, then why would we need to prove our love to him/her?  Is he/she insecure?  As I stated before, I’m a better mother to my child than god is a ruler of mankind.  As Dawkins contends, god as described in the bible and witnessed in life, is not good enough to be considered a perfect entity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 08:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 162 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7573
Joined  2007-03-02

Chicken, what he is missing that “God” is a human concept and each and every religion, as well as individuals of any given religion have various concepts of a deity.  His is not the only one and I have often thought that some atheists have a concept of what god(s) they do not believe in.  This is not all atheists, but some atheists.  I have no god concept and if one has none then there is none to attempt to justify.  I know of the various concepts, but I do not conceptualize them myself, except for when one is speaking of their specific concept.  Even then, I do not hold theirs as solid and embraceable, like they do.  What I knew in my childhood as my own concept (transcendent feelings/feelings of awe with the universe), was/is simply neurology.  IF he did not reject an education, he might learn similar things about his own concept or might even learn he never really had a concept except what others have given him over the years.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 163 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  323
Joined  2009-02-18

These appear to be the same old hackneyed arguments about the existence of god heard many, many times before. They do have some appeal to those whose critical and skeptical thinking is lacking or has atrophied, or to those who are emotionally insecure and need an omnipotent being to give their lives some meaning or purpose. This also appeals to people too tired or mentally lazy to consider alternatives. The faithfull don’t like the idea of being completely responsible for their own lives without punishment or reward in some fantasy afterlife for their worldy endeavors.

Personally, as a non-believer I find the freedom exhilarating and always challenging. Sure, I might yearn for some all caring super-being to comfort me and care for me, but I can’t give up my mental freedom for that. I think for myself, with all of the pitfalls and consequences that comes with that freedom. These super powerful gods always want a sacrifice of a person’s free will, even while giving devine lip service to that freedom of choice. It’s no choice at all because if you don’t toe the scriptorial line you end up in enternal pain and anguish. That’s no choice, but it is a threat. I don’t care for bullying gods, as I don’t like bullying people.

Walk with whatever god/gods you like, but don’t thread on me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 164 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
Adonai888 - 04 May 2009 07:12 PM

You are right in the sense, that most things are above the head of someone, that never studied biology, chemistry, astronomy etc.
But you underestimate the power of the internet. You can learn a lot, without be a expert on these matters. Youtube has many excellent videos, which help to understand DNA for example, how it works. Exponents of atheism, and ID, do share their thoughts, and you can assist these videos as well, and get a better idea of different issues.

Sorry but I have a degree in biology. I’ve taken biochemistry, and I still wouldn’t have the arrogance to claim that these statements are true in all circumstances and that they provide any proof whatsoever that other mechanisms could not be at work. It truly is the height of arrogance to say that 50 years of research by a handful of scientists provides any degree of confidence that life could not arise spontaneously. Please forgive me if I have little respect for the education you’ve acquired watching youtube videos and other questionable sources.

Adonai888 - 04 May 2009 07:12 PM

So i say again : make a research on the net, and don’t just guess. Unless , you do not want go beyond your actual knowledge….
I have done it, and made a indepth research of homochirality. All i can say : the site is correct in its claim. Do it by yourself !!

I haven’t the time to spend to bring my knowledge of these subjects up to current professorial standards, and it would serve no purpose. Science can only answer this question by ultimately proving that life can arise spontaneously not by proving it can’t (That is unprovable), By the same token you can only prove that god did it by showing evidence that he did, not by trying to show that life couldn’t occur spontaneously ( again that is unprovable)

Adonai888 - 04 May 2009 07:12 PM


Thats simply ignoring the facts. Its extremely unlikely to occure, that other methods will bring to a solution. Miller himself admitted that Numerous problems exist with the current thinking of RNA as the first genetic material. No plausible prebiotic processes have yet been demonstrated to produce the nucleosides or nucleotides or for efficient two-way nonenzymatic replication. 4
The discovery of the catalytic activity of RNA brought the concept of an RNA world into wide acceptance. However, the instability of ribose and other sugars, the great difficulty of prebiotic synthesis of the glycosidic bonds of the necessary nucleotides, and the inability to achieve two-way non-enzymatic template polymerizations have raised serious questions about whether RNA could have been the first genetic material, although there are dissenting opinions.

Notice, too, that his simulated atmosphere is still oxygen-free. All origin of life experiments use oxygen-free atmospheres. That, of course, is because oxygen would immediately break down any AEG his experiment produced.

The only reason for believing the Earth ever had an oxygen-free environment is because organic compounds could not possibly have originated naturally in the presence of oxygen.

You’ve said this before and once again you are only parotting things you’ve heard from others. I am not a geologist or a chemist. I am a biologist by training so maybe someone on this board who knows more than you and I can chime in here. The fact is that free oxygen is a highly reactive compound and does not persist in large concentrations for long periods of time unless it is continually produced by some process. Oxygen tends to react with iron and other elements in the environment so that it will not exist in its free form ( mostly O2) for long. The only process that we have on earth which produces free oxygen in substantial quantities is photosynthesis. Its a natural conclusion therefor that any planet without active photosythesis will have very low oxygen levels. There may be other geologic evidence to support this but again I don’t proclaim to be an expert. Then again I don’t see you offering any evidence to the contrary

Adonai888 - 04 May 2009 07:12 PM

I give a categorical NO to this kind of speculation

Its not speculation its logic. If you have more time and many more reastions going on then things that are unlikely to occur by definition become more likley to occur. You don’t get to say no to that. Its simple math.

Adonai888 - 04 May 2009 07:12 PM

Its up to you, to consider all, what i bring up here, as evidence for God , or not…..

 

I’m still waiting for the evidence. Come on Adonai. Not even one family photo of Dad and Jesus out for a day of fishing or a hotdog at the ballpark?

Oh yeah, I’m still waiting for you to tell me why people must be punished for their sins. You did a nice song and dance but never answered the question.

[ Edited: 05 May 2009 10:03 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2009 09:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 165 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Chicken - 05 May 2009 07:18 AM

Think about who you hate in your life.  Is there no one in your family that you hate?  Hate can be intrinsically linked to love.  I have a very big family, and I hate some of them, but it comes from hurt.  Hate isn’t the opposite of love; hate is one of many possible consequences of love.

“Chicken,” your post was excellent. I take issue with the above to this extent: I see Love in two dimensions: passion and harmony. When both are present, we have what most people would call Love.

Passion gives Love its power. Whether for my spouse, my child or anyone else, Love’s intensity is what motivates us to move mountains for the loved one. This is true whether one refers to agape or to eros.

Harmony gives Love its positive character. So, for example, a young man may be passionate about young woman but if he becomes jealous and “just has to kill her” because she prefers another man, that’s only the passion side of Love, turned ugly by disharmony. Only when one’s passion is attuned to the loved one’s welfare is Love a force for good.

People argue sometimes whether the opposite of Love is hatred or indifference; it’s both, each referring to one component. Hatred is Love’s opposite in the dimension of harmony; indifference is Love’s opposite in the dimension of passion.

Then there is Love as an experience. Its opposite is fear.

I have found this way of looking at it to resolve quite a few conflicts.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 26
11