If God is real, then why do we presume to think that cares about the human concept...

Short answer? Because it's all garbage. See? Garbage, crap, crapola, shite. Easy. Got anything else? Homework questions? Some algebra or history maybe?

your theory is not enough for you?

I think the short answer is that love isn't a human concept, but rather a Godly one since we're created in his image and presumed emulators of his behavior.

But any query on why or how God exists pretty much has the same answer: Because people (myself included) believe that He/She/It does.

Nice to see you're posing the question with an open mind.

I agree with Mikah. Because we were created by God we have aspects of Him in us. Thus the concept of love has its origins in God and not in humans.

I still have no idea what is being asked here. Can you re-phrase please?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBandit:
<strong>I don't see that love originated with god(in man's perspective.) I understand that this is basically a christian perspective, but in the old testament God does not come across as particularly "loving". </strong>

Sure he does. Guess it all depends on how you define love and it's scope though.

<strong>I think that the concept of a loving god came from Jesus. Jesus was a man. Some say that Jesus was the son of God, but in this argument this is really irrelevent. It is irrelevent on the basis that God is supposed to be "all loving", how could God "love" if he is not subject to human emotions, thoughts, or even conciousness.</strong>

You would be wrong. God is loving. (What does all loving mean to you?)

Exodus 34:6
And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD , the LORD , the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,

Leviticus 19:34
The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.

Deuteronomy 23:5
However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you.

<strong>To love is an expressly human condition. To impose this condition on a being that we have no understanding or comprehension of, seems to me to be an err.</strong>

To love is also a Godly condition as I have shown with the verses above (which only scratch the surface really). We aren't imposing it on Him. It is part of His character.

<strong>In the actuality of it love is an emotion just like sadness, anger, or hatred. I would think that if there was a God, he could not possibly veiw things in the limited terms that we as humans have set upon him.</strong>

I would say that love is more of an action than an emotion, but it is both. Of course God doesn't view things in our terms. His perspective is much larger.

<strong>To say that God loves, would be to say that God thinks, regrets, and reacts in the same way in which we humans do.</strong>

So are you saying all love is the same? Gods love is purer, fiercer, larger, than ours. Thus He naturally reacts differently than we do. Our love is but a plae shadow of His.

Originally posted by TheBandit:

I don't see that love originated with god(in man's perspective.) I understand that this is basically a christian perspective, but in the old testament God does not come across as particularly "loving".

I'm having difficulty identifying the essence of what you speak. My interpretation: You(The Bandit) can't see God creating love when in reality, and in Biblical tales, God appears unloving.

So, because God doesn't love you in human fashion, God must be incapable of creating and experiencing love?

...[H]ow could God "love" if he is not subject to human emotions, thoughts, or even conciousness.

God is omnipotent. Thus, the rules of this universe and message-board posters do not apply to God.

To love is an expressly human condition.

I suggest you research that statement.

To impose this condition on a being that we have no understanding or comprehension of, seems to me to be an err.

Yes, if you anthropomorphise.

I would think that if there was a God, he could not possibly veiw things in the limited terms that we as humans have set upon him.

WOULD not.

To say that God loves, would be to say that God thinks, regrets, and reacts in the same way in which we humans do.

God loves in the way God loves, not the way you 'think' God loves. Such love, by definition, is beyond human comprehension.

Besides, your logic is flawed utterly. God thinking as a human because God loves? Downright goofy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBandit:
<strong>Genesis 11:13

And God said to Noah,"I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

To be honest with you I am not sure the Bible can be quoted with indemnity. It to was a man made creation.</strong>

The Bible can be quoted with impunity and is not a man made document. Were that true then every word in it would be a lie and worth nothing. But I'm sure you disagree. In any case the quote that you give does not show God incapable of love. It shows another aspect of Him, namely that of righteousness.

<strong>Even if it is all true, then God to me doesn't seem to have a higher understanding of love. He seems like a child who doesn't get his way.</strong>

That's because you don't understand His nature as it is revealed in the Bible. You have a pre-conceived notion of the Christian God that shows a typical amount of misinformation and ignorance. "If God ever hates then he can't be capable of love." If that's true then we can't be capable of love. Man has committed more atrocities than God in your mind (since in your mind He doesn't exist) yet you would not say we are incapable of love. God not only has a better and purer concept of love he also has a higher more developed sense of right.

<strong>To quote the Bible cannot affect the argument over God feeling love. Even though I was the first to bring up the Biblical references, they are man made.</strong>

That is your opinion and not a fact. What I can say is this. The character of the Chistian God can be found in the Bible. If you are talking about some other God then perhaps I misunderstood. If you don't believe in God at all then why are we even having this conversation.

<strong>We can't quote a book and say that it proves God's love. We can simply state that the authors of the Bible viewed God in human terms. Just like they would any leader. This on my part is beginning to sound like my inundation to the beliefs of the deists, because I can simply not believe that humans could matter to a being that can shape and create universes. Much less their emotions.</strong>

Any creation matters to their creator. I can believe it and I'm not clear on why you can't.

I have always thought that human emotion and human traits were imperfect, and God is perfect, so therefore "our" notion of God is incorrect.

Then again, I went to Catholic School for 13 years, so I doubt almost everything. Excuse my cynical nature, carry on.

Arguing that God doesn't exist or that God can't understand human love based solely on the premise that because humans describe God in terms that humans understand is illogical. If you have a problem with the phrase "God is Love," then I see where you're coming from. Saying the "God" who created love can't understand love is on the bizarre side.

No, I can't see God feeling love.

God, as an omnipotent diety, is quite CAPABLE of feeling love as a person would.

I have no problem with the fact that he might have created it. I just can't see why we say love is what god feels for us when, God is unfathomable, ...

I agree, one has no way of 'proving' that God loves people. This is a matter of belief on a matter of belief.

... and love is not(unfathomable).

You fathom love?

I agree that if there is a God he is omnipotent. which is exactly why I feel that God could not care about the love of humans.

God is omnipotent. God can do whatever God 'wants'. And since God gave humans love in the first place, God may well 'care' .

If love is not an expressly human condition, what other creatures feel it.

What creatures don't feel love?

Do other animals love? and if so, how? Is is immodest to believe that only humans are capable of love?

I'm not going to answer impossible questions, but consider your dog.

Why would I have to anthropomorphise? I am not saying God is not a being, but if he is there, he is beyond our comprehension.

He?

So why is it automatically assumed that he "loves" at all in any way.

God loves because God is capable of love. God is capable of love because God is omnipotent.

I know the answer is faith, and I guess that is really were the argument would have to stop.

No, in this case it's logic.

But just because you said God "loves" the way God "loves" does not make your point any more valid than mine.

What is your point? If your point is that God doesn't love, then yes, my point is more valid. If your point is something else, learn to write clearly.

My logic is not skewed. It is a valid assumption that if people project human emotions onto their, respective, Gods.

If what?

A valid assumption? where? next to the straight hooks and college students?

God was angry. God rejoiced. I just don't see that if there is a God, that he is some really big person with a beard and "feelings".

God may do whatever. However, you're correct about the resentment beard. God is not a history teacher.

To say my logic is utterly flawed on a subject that defies logic is silly in itself.

This topic is logical. While God defies logic, our perceptions of God do not.

I can feel it, and know when it is real.

I feel gravity. I know gravity is real. What is gravity? One of the great mysteries of physics.

I feel love. I know love is real. What is love? One of the great mysteries of life.

Please consider the difference between observing and understanding.

I have never felt the love of God.

Neither have I. This is not 'evidence' for anything.

This isn't because I have lived a bad life. I am not angry at God, but I understand, for some reason that I can't understand, that God isn't real.

I understand, for some reason that I can't understand, that ... mighty Zeus sired me in the form of a Bull. Shit, sounds silly, does it not?

I don't feel him and there isn't any evidence to the contrary.

Your feelings are irrelevant; introspective observation does not a valid argument make. Contrary evidence is impossible; God is not falsifiable. Besides, do things yet unseen not exist? did Pluto simply 'appear' when astronomers first viewed it?

Though, yes, it is definitly possible to gauge the level on which you are loved. If not, how would you judge a friend from a lover?

Such scaling is arbitrary, and a creation of your mood. However, you are welcome to enlighten me if this 'love scale' exists.

He may well not give a flying fuck as well.

Yes, I said that earlier.

No creatures feel love.

Prove this.

The majority of animals brains are to small to even be concious, how in the hell would they feel emotion?

Animals feel 'emotion' via hormones and neurotransmitters, just like their close relative, homosapiens. Or do you believe humans are God's special creatures?

No, it is not immodest, it is obvious.

No, it's immodest, like your ridiculous conjecture of 'obviousness'.

My dog has sex. Humans would not even qualify this as love.

I would qualify sex as a quality of love.

I doubt you speak for humans. Certainly not intelligent humans who know what they're talking about.

I know the answer is faith, and I guess that is really were the argument would have to stop.

The answer is not faith. I'm an agnostic, yet I find it easy to engage the concept of a loving God.

What logic? Give it to me straight, because I would really like some definitive, logical proof that God is capable of love.

God is inherently omnipotent. An inability to 'love' is a caveat limiting God's power. Thus, God must be able to 'love' if God is to retain omnipotence.

I again state that "logic" has nothing to do with this argument becaues the subject itself defies it.

Not stating things 'again' would make you a better writer.

But just because you said God "loves" the way God "loves" does not make your point any more valid than mine.

How?

You said that God "loves" in God's way. This is bullshit.

No, the statement is tautological. Of course God loves in God's way, just as a widowed woman is a woman. You may reject it on that basis(phony credence), or for that matter, on the assumption that God's love is related to human love, but not with a bullshit' argument.

You can say that I can't argue your point, and you would be right.

No I can't, and no I wouldn't, respectively.

At the same time, I can say that God doesn't care about our human concept of love, and you have the exact amount of proof for your point as I do.

I have all the proof I provide. This is all predicated on possibilities, of course, but a lot of things are.

Sorry, what I meant to type was that my logic is not skewed. If you choose not to believe my veiws then, really, that is your opinion.

I'm not choosing to believe your views, I'm testing their weight.

However, one way or another, it does not affect my beliefs at all.

Beliefs? You're just believer?

Sorry about the typo.

Don't be.

I have never perceived, God.

Wrong perception. I meant notion, as in; what are your perceptions of George Bush?


So in all actuality it is impossible to perceive God. If we could perceive God, faith would become a non-issue. It would be a fact, people were devoted to religions over, not their faith.

It is possible to perceive God, should God present God before the senses of every human.

Your right, everything I have said has been bullshit. ... I have no business trying to talk philosophy with you.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel. You've no business discussing these weighty 100-level problems with me. I didn't dip through the digital aether to dilly-dally and debate with sublunar minds. Be off, mortal.

You also have an incredible talent for being rude to people.

Yes, I'm rude. Now, take a look at how you phrase yourself in this thread.

I never said anything to attack anyone's intellegence, because that is not the way civilized people discuss things.

This is an internet message board. You said some outright dopey things, like the bit about animals being unconcsious. Furthermore, you had little difficulty dismissing much of what I said in an offhand manner. Quit acting surprised.

I do hope that even though you (Adam) view me as an idiot, you see an idiot who can lose gracefully.

Yes, I spend much of my time dwelling on what an idiot you are. And losing gracefully would not involve this straw man, who is currently trying to fuck me, while calling me an asshole.

You have a great mind. I don't know your field, but I'm sure you excel at it.

I have an average mind. I use it wisely. I'm happy with a 'B' in school. And I'm unendingly self-critical.

I don't know if you will veiw that as a compiment, being as it comes from a mind that is "less than." Even so it is a compliment.

A caveat! Lest we forget that Adam thinks he is God.

You have taught me a valuble lesson about coming into a debate unprepared. From this day on, I won't.

Yes you will. We all do.

Adam, there is only one piece of advice I can offer you from my feeble mind.

Yes, smeagol?

Next time you debate with someone, why don't you let the strength of your argument make your opponent feel stupid, not the acidity of your responses.

You are correct. Mere humans are beneath my contempt.

Come on, I've taken more shit for my views than I care to think. I've been wrong. I've been gutted; my idiot innards laid-out before me and burned. And I've engaged in civil discourse. But I've never been Pussy.

Sorry about wasting Adam and everyone else's time with my inane drivel.

If your drivel were so inane, I would not have engaged it.

If I ever post again in this forum, I assure you I will be prepared. Though for now, I'm a fraud and I'm out.

Caustic wit is what makes these boards engaging. We all get burned. Learn to love it.

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death. Proverbs 14:12

A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. I would have told you that, if someone was trying to live a good life, God would accept them.

The problem is this: how do you know that you've been good enough? Or bad enough to be rejected? So many people seem to believe that there is an arbitrary line somewhere, and on one side lie the sins that god will forgive, and on the other, the sins He will punish. Of course, everyone seems to believe that that line lies somewhere past their own sins.

A cross country murder spree? Sure, that'll get punished. A single murder? Yep, one way ticket to hell. Rape? Lake of Fire, here we come. Adultery? Well, as long as I'm not the adulterer. Stealing? Well, I only stole a little... Lying? Well, it was only a little white lie...

As far as I can tell, archaeologists and anthropologists have never discovered an atheistic society; there are certainly atheistic members of societies, but never a prevailing culture which itself rules out the existence of God. All of these cultures have some form of religion, a system by which they hope to reach out to, or at least appease, their version of the divine.

However, it is my belief, supported by the Bible, that human beings can never reach God. Nothing we can do is significant enough to earn His favor. Isaiah 64:6 says “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.”

On top of that, the Bible describes God as absolutely Holy, allowing nothing impure into His presence. So all of those things that we imagine He will just forgive and forget will, in fact, lead Him to reject us. He must, because of His character, punish sin.

That is the central message of Christianity: the Love of God in conflict with the Justice of God, resolved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We cannot pay the price for our sins, as that price is death, but Jesus, the God who created us, became flesh and died in our place, making a way to the Father for all who believe in Him. We could never reach God, so He had to reach down to us.

You don't need an archaelogist to discover Communist China or the Soviet Union. They've been there during our own lifetimes. I'd also take issue with categorizing the world's Buddhists as "theistic." No, Buddhism doesn't rule OUT the existence of God....but it doesn't INCLUDE it, either.

God's Big Ol' Book Of answers, strangly enough, asks the same thing.

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him? Psalm 8:3-4

I've got to get back to work, so this is going to be short, but I'll leave you with this thought: almost everyone questions if God could love us, or why He does; even the authors of the Bible. To those who don't believe in God, it is just one more "fact" disproving religion. To those who do believe, though, it is just one more reason to be grateful for all that He is and does.

<img src="http://www.retireonyourterms.com/annuities/images/ca_flag.jpg" alt="" />

Whatever he's been in he certainly has been doing abetter job of explaining things via typing then I have been able to this past year. I do far better in person with my articulation.

I welcome him aboard!

I'm not talking about state-forced atheism, I'm talking about a people who, on their own, have no sense of a higher power, god, etc.

Nope, I'm just a guy with a bible and some spare time. I've lead a couple of christian groups on college campuses, though, and I'm going to be starting another for my church in the near future. I'm not ordained, though, nor am I on track to be.

Thanks to both of you.

The Greek Christian scriptures actually mentions several types of love; fileo, which is a brotherly love, eros, which is sexual/physical love, and probably a few others that I can't come up with off the top of my head.

When Jesus described the love of God, though, he used a different word: agape. While the people He was speaking to would have know what this word meant, it had fallen out of usage. It describes a highly intimate, passionate, active love., a love that works, stretches, sacrifices. Jesus choose this word primarily to show that, yes, the love of God was greater than the love of man.

I am curious, though, to know what you believe we start out as, if not human.

No, no human can know God, unless He reveals himself to us. That is why we are so dependent on scripture; those of us who quote it do so primarily because we believe it to have been written by men who were inspired by God, almost as if He was looking over their shoulder and saying "this is what I want you to tell them about Me..."

As to why I hold this belief; I know it's a cop out, but I really can't explain it here. As I've said elsewhere, it's a major study, and one that will take me a few weeks to put together. When I have it done, though, I'll post a link. I will say, however, that the Bible is unmatched in historical accuracy and fulfilled prophecy.

Actually, if you're interested in doing some research on your own, you might try googling for "bible archeology proof", "bible history accurate", and "bible prophecy fulfilled". Some books that might interest you are <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310234697/qid=1045148493/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-2373278-5999203" target="_blank"> The Case for Faith </a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310209307/qid=1045148493/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-2373278-5999203" target="_blank"> The Case for Christ </a>, both by Lee Strobel. Of the two, I prefer Case for Christ.

[quote]thomas.galvin:
Then it would seem to me only fair that you discount societies built upon state-enforced THEISM, and there have been far many more of those.

But in any case, I didn't just pick China and Russia out of a hat. In Cuba and Communist Poland, for instance, there was also state-enforced atheism, but the overwhelming majority of citizens still identified themselves as Catholics. In Russia, it's been a full decade since the fall of the Communist regime, and that time has seen a rebirth of Orthodox, Muslim, and Jewish practice. But the majority of Russians do still identify themselves as atheist. Hell, the majority of Norwegians identify themselves as atheist, and there the Lutheran Church is supported by the state.

[quote]Cosmic Ray:
Fair enough. I'll concede defeat on this point.

[quote]Cosmic Ray:
China has a very long history of ancestor worship, as well as it's Buddhist practitioners. Boiling it down, those people do believe in "something more," which is analogous to a higher power belief.

Galvin's point was that there is no society in the world that doesn't have some concept of God. Whether those societies, like Norway I suppose, choose to reject that idea is entirely up to them. But they know that the option is there.

Every society in the world has some form of marriage. Just because some in every society choose not to get married doesn't mean that they don't see marriage as a possible avenue.

Right, but of what value or importance is that? It would be equally hard to find a culture that didn't have some CONCEPT of atheism.

Considering that God is not available to any of our five senses, why should humans have any concept of a supreme being? Atheism, fundamentally, is a rejection of the concept of God but the concept came first. Would you classify someone with no concept of God as an atheist? Is there any culture on the planet that doesn't have some religious belief? Why are humans programmed to look outside themselves for answers?

Psychologically, we have a need to figure out the "whys" of life. I don't think this necessarily suggests that there are "whys" to be discovered.

The need for a supreme being probably has a lot to do with our need to be comforted and parented, as well as our need to be told what to do. Complete freedom is scary.

Just because the question occurs to us doesn't mean that the answer is what we want to hear. We're curious by nature.

Because humans are programmed to seek and recombine patterns. Such pattern-seeking behaviour no doubt aided us greatly as an evolutionary mechanism, in providing for our ability to track migratory patterns of herds, set snares, start fires, use tools, and eventually, develop agriculture. So those humans with the most creative pattern-seeking brains survived, while those with a more mundane reliance only on their five senses did not.

But one of the side effects of pattern-seeking as an evolutionary tool is that true positives are rewarded far more than false positives are punished. Those who recognized that dissentary sufferers were cured by drinking salt water were rewarded over those who sought no pattern, but those who imagined that the cause of the disease was possession by evil spirits were not at a DISADVANTAGE compared to those who sought no pattern. It may even be the case that the desirability of creative pattern-seeking as a skill was by itself so much an advantage that even those whose patterns were more often wrong than right would still have an edge over those who failed to find patterns in the first place.

In fact, in many cases, both true and false patterns can coincide. The use of mulch in agriculture dates back to the sacrifice of previous harvests to the gods of the new one. The intent was to appease the unseen spirit to allow another successful growing season. That it also happened to have the tangible benefit of fertilizing the crop was a pattern whose effects were seen, without a true understanding of their cause.

So it should not surprise at all that our pattern-seeking ancestors would look for explanations of phenomena whose causes were not readily apparent to the senses, and that among the conclusions they would come to were postulates about the existence of spirits, ghosts, gods, demons and other unseeable beings who were able to influence their day to day life. This urge to seek ultimate causes of surface phenomena is, in fact, the origin both of religion, AND science. It is the same urge that led us to the discovery of germs, hormones, photosynthesis, gravity, molecular bonding, and the great variety of other scientific concepts that, also, are not apparent to the naked eye.

By the way, I wish to add that it is a very coy rhetorical game to slip in as many different religious precepts as possible (such as the Buddhist system of karma and dharma, or the Chinese system of ancestor worship, or the various pagan belief systems in multiple gods and spirits) into a single heading of belief in "something more," and then slyly changing the point of reference to universal belief in a "Supreme Being."

Sentiments that we might classify as religious probably ARE universal, and I believe they are for the same reasons that science is universal. But belief in a "supreme being" is most certainly not. As a matter of fact, in the course of human history, monotheism seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back no further than Akhenaton (who failed in his attempt at introducing monotheism to Egypt) and the earliest evidence of Hebrew culture from the same period (which, obviously, succeeded.)

So I can certainly agree that we all seek "something more," but we don't all seek the SAME something. Treating the significant differences between all these various "somethings" as trivial is a pretty poor starting point for any analysis of the human search for meaning.

Atheism has come to connote a rejection of the concept of God, but that is not what it means. Theism is a positive belief in God. Atheism is lack of a positive belief in God, in the same way that apathy is a lack of pathos.

When we want to connote a HOSTILITY toward pathos, we use the term "antipathy." And so, a full-on rejection of the concept of God (in the sense that people usually associate with "atheism") SHOULD be the term "antitheism." The prefix "a-" is inherently neutral.

And yes, I would classify someone with no concept of God as an atheist.

"Agnostic", though a term I sometimes self-apply for the sake of clarity, is a very clumsy adjective that, taken in its literal sense, implies the impossibility of having knowledge ("gnosis") about ANYTHING, not just the existence or non-existence of God.

What in tarnation are you talking about?

And....what about it, exactly?

I'm pretty comfortable in what I'M seeking, but I'm more than a little confused on what it is you're suggesting that you are.

On CHUD, something lacked, and it was Cosmic Ray.