To "Know God"

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you need to believe "love exists" in any philisophical or metaphysical sense in order to value human qualities like Compassion, Empathy, Tolerance, Good Will, Charity, Humility, Integrity etc. The word "Love" may be too connotatively charged. I don't think it's necessary for the discussion except as a guidepost word for those agreeable to it.

PairTheBoard

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

ur life must suck

anyways God isn't love... God is God... love is love...

2 different things

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

ur life must suck

anyways God isn't love... God is God... love is love...

2 different things

[/ QUOTE ]

Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

ur life must suck

anyways God isn't love... God is God... love is love...

2 different things

[/ QUOTE ]

Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see I have that underlined in my Bible vhawk. From the NIV Study Bible:
I John 4:16
===========
"And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him."
===========

So I don't think my OP is without Scriptural support, for those who value such support. I don't assert any authority from it. However I do think it indicates that there was one spiritually minded fellow held in high esteem by the early Christian Church who was evidently thinking along the same lines as my OP.

PairTheBoard

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was written by a man... sheesh

i hate when people quote psalms, or some story when a regular guy gives his philosophies or whatever

God never claimed to be love, thats something man said

and they just meant God is loving anyways, which he is

he's all our father

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was written by a man... sheesh

i hate when people quote psalms, or some story when a regular guy gives his philosophies or whatever

God never claimed to be love, thats something man said

and they just meant God is loving anyways, which he is

he's all our father

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand.

And the statement god isn't love that you made up on the spot is more correct, why??

[PairTheBoard]

The following is a post vhawk made in response to me in another thread. I thought it was more relevant to the discussion here than the one on that thread. So I'm copying it below. I'll respond in a while. Enjoy.
=======================
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When we accept the premise that you don't need to validate your actions in light of any common, human innate sense of morality, what makes 'Thou shall not kill' any more valid than 'Eat babies?'. We are then left to fight out which religion has the better message, a battle that cannot be won since there is no objective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've just given a valid standard which people may use to judge the merits of different religions. If the religion violates the "common, human innate sense of morality" you refer to, good judgement rejects it in part or in whole if necessary. The Vatican in recent years has come to recognize this necessity in its placing of Primacy on the individual human conscience.

Just because tenets of Faith lie beyond objective evidence does not mean there is no basis on which to judge the relative merits of different Religions. Reasonable people may differ on their judgements. But such lack of uniformity does not imply absence of value.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism. Its a reasonable goal. I am still a little confused as to the merits or necessity of subjective experience (as you've defined it) but at least I understand. I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?

[/ QUOTE ]
=================

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not sure where this ecumenical dialogue will take us vhawk. What I see when I look at the broad sweep of history is a long, often painful, coming together of humanity. The process has often involved the breaking down of doors rather than waiting to be invited in. Perhaps if we were better guests we would find ourselves invited in more often. And perhaps we could be better hosts when doing the inviting as well.

So what I see in the future is more coming together by way of conciliation rather than confrontation. I think this is inevitable. But who knows. I wish I could live long enough to see it happen. I suspect what eventually emerges would have pleasant suprises in it for both of us if we could be there to see it. On the other hand, we might be NotReady for it. Let's hope love prevails.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can escape religion vhawk - and many would say, thank god for that. But you can't escape subjective experience. I don't think I've ever argued that you should necessarily find religious interpretations to be most suitable for you personally. My arguments have only been to defend those who do find them suitable. I suspect that if you were somehow manipulated into investing yourself in a religious interpretation it would likely be detrimental to you in some ways. It would not really ring true for you and when push came to shove you would find little real comfort in it. You have to be true to yourself.

But you will continue to live with your subjective experiences. Your sense of awe at the beauty and majesty of the Universe. Your sense of wonder at the laws of physics that make it work. Your amazement over the intricacies of biological function. The sense of intrigue in the mystery of existence. The disconnect with your past in the grief over loss of a loved one, or birth of your child. Everything involved with being human including love, compassion, empathy, character, etc.

As time goes on you may develop your own inner poetic interpretations for these experiences. Who knows what you might come up with. If you ever need a religious one, let's hope one is available that suits you. Or maybe you will come up with one of your own. Or maybe it will be something neither of us can conceive at this moment. At any rate, I assume you have the one that suits you for now. It's not my intention to trample your garden.


PairTheBoard

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
You can escape religion vhawk - and many would say, thank god for that. But you can't escape subjective experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

But who can escape the subjective aspect? I don't have much of a problem with people killing one another, but I do make a distinction between killing someone and murdering someone. To take it out of a strictly human confrontation and act, we don't think too much about killing a cow to get food, but that's something quite different than standing in a pasture and shooting a bunch of cows.

This all comes back to a question of intention. No one knows what God is. God is Love is an intention, or as Aquinas would say - a movement of the will - a choice.

Going on the premise that God is Love - God is and always will be a choice - for the simple reason that Love is an act of volition.

It's pretty easy to throw the word, "love," around, but we really don't stop and ask what that word really means. We can all cruise through a post quickly enough, but do we ever really slow down enough to dip into the philosophical aspect?


What is love? I have a hard time imagining it being something that is biologically, physically, or mechanically induced.

However I sort it out, there's an idea of, "endowment," associated with my conception of love. In other words it's something we choose to give, and more to the point, love is something we have the power to withhold.

I've yet to run across a proof for God's existence, but I've run across a few compelling arguments. So I'm basically left with the possibility of asserting the following premise and conclusion: If God exists, and if God is love; then how could a Being realize the reality of Love without the existence of a being that has the power to withhold love?

Refute the premises all you like, but no one with an ounce of integrity will say that they've been disproven, because they haven't. So with philosophical integrity called into question, and premise(s) that haven't been proven false, one question remains:

How could a Being (God) realize the reality of love without a being that has the capacity to withhold love?

Like I said, you could debate the premises all you like, but you're still left with the fundamental question of theology, and ultimately face the question of how love could exist without God. But you still have to start by answering one question:

How could a Being (God) realize the reality of love without a being that has the capacity to withhold love?

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not sure where this ecumenical dialogue will take us vhawk. What I see when I look at the broad sweep of history is a long, often painful, coming together of humanity. The process has often involved the breaking down of doors rather than waiting to be invited in. Perhaps if we were better guests we would find ourselves invited in more often. And perhaps we could be better hosts when doing the inviting as well.

So what I see in the future is more coming together by way of conciliation rather than confrontation. I think this is inevitable. But who knows. I wish I could live long enough to see it happen. I suspect what eventually emerges would have pleasant suprises in it for both of us if we could be there to see it. On the other hand, we might be NotReady for it. Let's hope love prevails.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can escape religion vhawk - and many would say, thank god for that. But you can't escape subjective experience. I don't think I've ever argued that you should necessarily find religious interpretations to be most suitable for you personally. My arguments have only been to defend those who do find them suitable. I suspect that if you were somehow manipulated into investing yourself in a religious interpretation it would likely be detrimental to you in some ways. It would not really ring true for you and when push came to shove you would find little real comfort in it. You have to be true to yourself.

But you will continue to live with your subjective experiences. Your sense of awe at the beauty and majesty of the Universe. Your sense of wonder at the laws of physics that make it work. Your amazement over the intricacies of biological function. The sense of intrigue in the mystery of existence. The disconnect with your past in the grief over loss of a loved one, or birth of your child. Everything involved with being human including love, compassion, empathy, character, etc.

As time goes on you may develop your own inner poetic interpretations for these experiences. Who knows what you might come up with. If you ever need a religious one, let's hope one is available that suits you. Or maybe you will come up with one of your own. Or maybe it will be something neither of us can conceive at this moment. At any rate, I assume you have the one that suits you for now. It's not my intention to trample your garden.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be the most beautiful post ever.

I think it may acknowledge the angry behind the 'angry atheist'. In response to arguments about the existence of god, the theists deny the atheist the dignity of having a meaning to life, love and the other nice things by claiming they have the key and there's only one.