|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 22, 2016 13:19:28 GMT -5
Good example of real love:
John 15
Better love hath no man than this , than that he would lay down his life
for his friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 22, 2016 14:46:07 GMT -5
I think the point is about proof. Can a claim be made and be considered as a proof? How does one prove that we have love for another, unless we understand the Essence of love / (or source/nature of)?? Just something to think about. Are we borrowing a term that belongs to our Creator ? Can we prove that/where love exists? And that it really is as real as you or your wife? If an individual states that they love another they are basing it on their definition of love and, like any belief, it is theirs and proof is not required. A person who is the target of such a proclaimed emotion can't deny they are loved, at least they cannot deny that are, according to the person claiming to love them, loved. Beyond that you are quibbling over the definition of a word. If a person says they love another based on the common definition of the word ( love - an intense feeling of deep affection.), it cannot be proved whether they have such a feeling or not. Like a belief, it is a personal thing not based on material proof. Should you want empirical data I suppose you could take measurements of certain bodily functions and see if they relate to the measurements observed in other humans who also claim they love someone/something but at best you are are trying to evaluate a personal belief. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 22, 2016 14:54:41 GMT -5
What GOD hath joined together let no man put asunder . GOD is love. Are you redefining 'god' or 'love'? They both already have definitions so you need to explain when you modify a definition and then try to use the words in a discussion. I would have to guess you are modifying the meaning of 'love' since the bible states, for example, that god hates all workers of iniquity. So it is clear god is not all love but harbors some hate as well. I mean, for some reason god also hated Esau. So, can you please clear up your definitions? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 22, 2016 15:05:35 GMT -5
Good example of real love: John 15 Better love hath no man than this , than that he would lay down his life for his friends. This makes little sense. Since the goal for a christian is to die and reap their eternal reward, dying to save one's friends could be seen as a selfish act in an attempt to get to heaven early. And besides, wouldn't it be a better demonstration of 'real love' if a man were to lay down his life for strangers or his enemies? I mean, people want to, and in some cases, enjoy helping out their friends. So not much of a sacrifice there. But dying to help strangers or your enemies - now there is an expression of real love, much better than dying to help your friends. Maybe you can explain how John 15 got that point wrong. Or do you think helping friends represent more of a sacrifice or is more of an expression of love than helping strangers or even enemies? I am sure you remember the story of the good Samaritan - big points for helping out a stranger in need. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 22, 2016 15:14:20 GMT -5
BBC Brain Story Episode 6 deals with Conciseness and Free Will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 22, 2016 17:12:23 GMT -5
Good example of real love: John 15 Better love hath no man than this , than that he would lay down his life for his friends. This makes little sense. Since the goal for a christian is to die and reap their eternal reward, dying to save one's friends could be seen as a selfish act in an attempt to get to heaven early. And besides, wouldn't it be a better demonstration of 'real love' if a man were to lay down his life for strangers or his enemies? I mean, people want to, and in some cases, enjoy helping out their friends. So not much of a sacrifice there. But dying to help strangers or your enemies - now there is an expression of real love, much better than dying to help your friends. Maybe you can explain how John 15 got that point wrong. Or do you think helping friends represent more of a sacrifice or is more of an expression of love than helping strangers or even enemies? I am sure you remember the story of the good Samaritan - big points for helping out a stranger in need. "Greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends" This is addressed to a particular relationship, one of doing something for a friend. Only One was able to die for those that opposed Him, in the hope that that death ,would not be in vain |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 22, 2016 21:00:16 GMT -5
What GOD hath joined together let no man put asunder . GOD is love. Are you redefining 'god' or 'love'? . So, can you please clear up your definitions? Thanks. I believe the Hebrew people are given credit for describing their G-D as Love/Spirit Without a source of real love we cannot know what it really is Sure modern man can hijack His name to some other yet if you ask scholars of ancient Hebrew they say. that His name. is above all and is the source of : mercy, truth, grace , just , wisdom,.... Eternal , holy, omniscient, joy ,Father, On a human level we often call the one we believe loves us: Love This definition has far more historical value than any English dictionary Definition . (existing since about 1750) |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2016 0:12:04 GMT -5
Are you redefining 'god' or 'love'? . So, can you please clear up your definitions? Thanks. I believe the Hebrew people are given credit for describing their G-D as Love/Spirit Without a source of real love we cannot know what it really is Sure modern man can hijack His name to some other yet if you ask scholars of ancient Hebrew they say. that His name. is above all and is the source of : mercy, truth, grace , just , wisdom,....
Eternal , holy, omniscient, joy ,Father,On a human level we often call the one we believe loves us: Love This definition has far more historical value than any English dictionary Definition . (existing since about 1750)
His name is above all and is the source of : mercy, truth, grace , just , wisdom,....
Eternal , holy, omniscient, joy, Father,..."
How can the Hebrew people (or anyone else for that matter) possible say that God is Love after all the times HE committed genocide and told them to do so also? 
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 23, 2016 1:08:07 GMT -5
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends" This is addressed to a particular relationship, one of doing something for a friend. It also claimed to be the greatest love. I am contending that giving one's life for an enemy is a greater display of love than doing the same thing for friends. This is simply not true. Hundreds of people have died for those who opposed them. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 23, 2016 3:50:21 GMT -5
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends" This is addressed to a particular relationship, one of doing something for a friend. It also claimed to be the greatest love. I am contending that giving one's life for an enemy is a greater display of love than doing the same thing for friends. This is simply not true. Hundreds of people have died for those who opposed them. Origin of G-D is better described in Judaism 101 Really this is very much over our human understanding and best be understood by each individually Thank you for the response I may attempt additional later . |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 23, 2016 9:07:23 GMT -5
Thank you for the response I may attempt additional later . I hope so. I could not help but notice that you rarely address any or the points raised regarding your posts nor provide answers to questions asked. Perhaps you are saving them for later. |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 23, 2016 16:38:51 GMT -5
To be more precise: The creation of the concept of God was (arguably) something that man needed. To many, the “God” (or similar) word points to an ineffable, transcendent reality that is quite independent of any thoughts we might have about it, or words we might use/invent to try to capture it. Even though "God" may have never meant anything to you other than an idea in your head, it does not negate the glimpses that others have had of the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness, behind that word. To be even more precise - there is nothing that points to there being a god. The 'glimpses' that have been passed down are all in the realm of anecdotal tales. What god has meant or means to me is not the issue. What people believe is not the issue. The issue is as old as the concept. There have been a multitude of claims but what is missing to support the extraordinary claims is the extraordinary proof. For some people belief supported by faith constitutes 'proof' but that is not the way the real world works. Dabbling in spirits and speculating regarding paranormal beliefs is fun but does not constitute proof in any sense of the word. I do not deny that people hold these beliefs nor that at some point, after countless centuries of people trying, that someone will pop up and present that extraordinary proof to support the extraordinary claim. But until that happens - god is a belief, a concept. Correction. "God" is a belief or a concept to you. The “glimpses” have not been passed down from anywhere – it is in the form of a deep personal inner experience. (Sometimes sacred writings can resonate with this deep personal experience, but they do NOT elicit or define it.) It is more real to people who have experienced it, than “facts” or “data”. (Yes, at this stage of our evolution (Homo sapiens), if we attempt to communicate it others, it is in the form of anecdotal tales, as we do not have the vocabulary to do otherwise - nor is there a shared experience with everyone – this exchange being a case in point.. That is why the Richard Dawkins style of dialog is never going anywhere. Like it or not, this is something intrinsic to the human condition. You can either start sincerely asking the question of “What are these people talking about?” or chances are you will dead-end your contributions to the evolution of humankind. If we, collectively, do not start asking these kinds of questions, then we are going to dead-end humankind altogether. (I am yet to be convinced that is a bad thing.) |
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 23, 2016 16:59:19 GMT -5
Correction. "God" is a belief or a concept to you. The “glimpses” have not been passed down from anywhere – it is in the form of a deep personal inner experience. (Sometimes sacred writings can resonate with this deep personal experience, but they do NOT elicit or define it.) It is more real to people who have experienced it, than “facts” or “data”. (Yes, at this stage of our evolution (Homo sapiens), if we attempt to communicate it others, it is in the form of anecdotal tales, as we do not have the vocabulary to do otherwise - nor is there a shared experience with everyone – this exchange being a case in point.. That is why the Richard Dawkins style of dialog is never going anywhere. Like it or not, this is something intrinsic to the human condition. You can either start sincerely asking the question of “What are these people talking about?” or chances are you will dead-end your contributions to the evolution of humankind. If we, collectively, do not start asking these kinds of questions, then we are going to dead-end humankind altogether. (I am yet to be convinced that is a bad thing.)
Elegantly and passionately expressed! Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2016 17:53:44 GMT -5
To be even more precise - there is nothing that points to there being a god. The 'glimpses' that have been passed down are all in the realm of anecdotal tales. What god has meant or means to me is not the issue. What people believe is not the issue. The issue is as old as the concept. There have been a multitude of claims but what is missing to support the extraordinary claims is the extraordinary proof. For some people belief supported by faith constitutes 'proof' but that is not the way the real world works. Dabbling in spirits and speculating regarding paranormal beliefs is fun but does not constitute proof in any sense of the word. I do not deny that people hold these beliefs nor that at some point, after countless centuries of people trying, that someone will pop up and present that extraordinary proof to support the extraordinary claim. But until that happens - god is a belief, a concept. Correction. "God" is a belief or a concept to you. The “glimpses” have not been passed down from anywhere – it is in the form of a deep personal inner experience. (Sometimes sacred writings can resonate with this deep personal experience, but they do NOT elicit or define it.) It is more real to people who have experienced it, than “facts” or “data”. (Yes, at this stage of our evolution (Homo sapiens), if we attempt to communicate it others, it is in the form of anecdotal tales, as we do not have the vocabulary to do otherwise - nor is there a shared experience with everyone – this exchange being a case in point.. That is why the Richard Dawkins style of dialog is never going anywhere.Like it or not, this is something intrinsic to the human condition. You can either start sincerely asking the question of “What are these people talking about?” or chances are you will dead-end your contributions to the evolution of humankind. If we, collectively, do not start asking these kinds of questions, then we are going to dead-end humankind altogether. (I am yet to be convinced that is a bad thing.)
True, these beliefs or concepts concerning god may have come from so called “glimpses” passed down in writing or by mouth.
True, people do have "deep personal inner experiences."
Those people may well believe that THEIR experience overrides "facts & data."
Think about this, -how can we reconcile all those "personal" experiences, which are different BECAUSE they are personal & therefore different?
Which of those experiences can we all determine to be "real" or "factual" and that will fit into a framework that will produce one legitimate belief or concept?
Isn't that the very reason there are thousands of different religious beliefs in the world today?
Ps:
Give me Richard Dawkins "style of dialog" anytime from that of a someone preaching from a street corner or pulpit or the platform at convention.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 23, 2016 18:08:32 GMT -5
Correction. "God" is a belief or a concept to you. The “glimpses” have not been passed down from anywhere – it is in the form of a deep personal inner experience. (Sometimes sacred writings can resonate with this deep personal experience, but they do NOT elicit or define it.) It is more real to people who have experienced it, than “facts” or “data”. (Yes, at this stage of our evolution (Homo sapiens), if we attempt to communicate it others, it is in the form of anecdotal tales, as we do not have the vocabulary to do otherwise - nor is there a shared experience with everyone – this exchange being a case in point.. That is why the Richard Dawkins style of dialog is never going anywhere.Like it or not, this is something intrinsic to the human condition. You can either start sincerely asking the question of “What are these people talking about?” or chances are you will dead-end your contributions to the evolution of humankind. If we, collectively, do not start asking these kinds of questions, then we are going to dead-end humankind altogether. (I am yet to be convinced that is a bad thing.)
True, these beliefs or concepts concerning god may have come from so called “glimpses” passed down in writing or by mouth.
True, people do have "deep personal inner experiences."
Those people may well believe that THEIR experience overrides "facts & data."
Think about this, -how can we reconcile all those "personal" experiences, which are different BECAUSE they are personal & therefore different?
Which of those experiences can we all determine to be "real" or "factual" and that will fit into a framework that will produce one legitimate belief or concept?
Isn't that the very reason there are thousands of different religious beliefs in the world today?
Ps:
Give me Richard Dawkins "style of dialog" anytime from that of a someone preaching from a street corner or pulpit or the platform at convention.
Fair enough. Truth to be told, I would happily listen to Richard Dawkins any day over someone preaching from a street corner, a pulpit or a platform at convention. But I would never exchange that for a Rumi, a Hafiz, a Gibran, a Joseph Campbell, or an Anthony deMello. Or many others, including my own inner experience. (I don't think we are aspiring to "one legitimate belief or concept". Why would we? When you make your thoughts or your intellect as the pinnacle of life, you miss a whole lot of what it means to be a human being. I think we are all just participating in the dance of life, the experience of being alive. There's a lot we aren't ever going to figure out, at least in this lifetime, but we can all experience feelings of significance and meaning.) |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2016 21:13:49 GMT -5
I disagree, Sharon.
True, these beliefs or concepts concerning god may have come from so called “glimpses” passed down in writing or by mouth.
True, people do have "deep personal inner experiences."
Those people may well believe that THEIR experience overrides "facts & data."
Think about this, -how can we reconcile all those "personal" experiences, which are different BECAUSE they are personal & therefore different?
Which of those experiences can we all determine to be "real" or "factual" and that will fit into a framework that will produce one legitimate belief or concept?
Isn't that the very reason there are thousands of different religious beliefs in the world today?
Ps:
Give me Richard Dawkins "style of dialog" anytime from that of a someone preaching from a street corner or pulpit or the platform at convention.
Fair enough. Truth to be told, I would happily listen to Richard Dawkins any day over someone preaching from a street corner, a pulpit or a platform at convention. But I would never exchange that for a Rumi, a Hafiz, a Gibran, a Joseph Campbell, or an Anthony deMello. Or many others, including my own inner experience. (I don't think we are aspiring to "one legitimate belief or concept". Why would we? When you make your thoughts or your intellect as the pinnacle of life, you miss a whole lot of what it means to be a human being. I think we are all just participating in the dance of life, the experience of being alive. There's a lot we aren't ever going to figure out, at least in this lifetime, but we can all experience feelings of significance and meaning.)
They indeed inspire us and at the same time helps us to feel emotion at greater depths which is exhilarating.
They also help explain WHY humankind has developed the beliefs what we have. (especially Campbell)
I agree that we should try to reach the "pinnacle of life," and as you say, "participate in the dance of life."
Basically, I believe that is true because THIS life is all we are ever going to have!
It also helps to humanize us to see not only the beauty of life, but how we can help others to be able to experience it.
PS:
Never-the-less, when we reach that pinnacle, we need to remember that we are creatures that must adhere to that "scientific theory of gravity" and are earth bound so we won't be tempted to try & fly up , up and away or we will fall, fall down on the rocks below! 
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 24, 2016 23:05:28 GMT -5
Correction. "God" is a belief or a concept to you. It is a concept until there is some reproducible and verifiable proof.The same can be said of ghosts , elves, and fairies.I have worked with people who claimed to have experienced what they considered 'sacred' experiences. They were claimed to be very real to the people who were having the experience.These same people frequently had trouble expressing themselves. They did not have the vocabulary, as you said, so they redefined words or, sometimes, created new words which, sadly, they could not define either. None of this made their experiences real. They were, at best, beliefs. And, in some cases, in the course of the treatment they were amazed when they came to understand the things they has claimed. For a long time I had a painting hanging in my office that was given to me by a patient. He said to hang it as a reminder that things were not always as they seemed. Unfortunately, less than a year later, at the ripe old age of 19, he decided this life was not for him and left. Really? Part of the human DNA? Essential to the organism? Doesn't it seem odd that it is largely dependent on the person's environment and that it varies so much from person to person? intrinsic - Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.I will start asking that question as soon as just one of those people can provide a single point of verifiable evidence that there is actually something that they are talking about.I am not so sure there is a dead-end. With evolution there is constant change.Ask the questions. But with nothing to build on what answers can you expect? Speculation? |
|
|
|
Post by Lockdown? ? on Apr 14, 2020 6:06:18 GMT -5
Is this a deliberate way of depriving humanity of
Commonsense ?
We need answers , America, Australia, Asia, Europe,
Africa?
“Crow- house: Most people really don’t know what is going on”
(A 20 minute walk interview , with an interesting perspective?)
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Hmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by Lock down ? on Apr 14, 2020 6:11:19 GMT -5
“
“Crow house: Most people have no idea what is happening “
20 minute walking interview with an Australian, trying
to make sense of a crazy lockdown.
😢😢😢
|
|
|
|
Post by Lock up on Apr 15, 2020 18:22:27 GMT -5
Before people should jump on the bandwagon,
Consider past conspiracies, like the JFK scandal,
Bobby Kennedy scandal , Ted Kennedy scandal,
World Trade Center!
Jspan “not so surprise “ attack on Pearl Harbor!
Many more , perhaps even Abe Lincoln ?
Not everything is above corruption .
Things aren’t as they appear to be.
If something doesn’t add up, watch for Big Smoke screens.
If government can find it useful, eventually all governments will
Jump on the bandwagon, Perhaps this off key comment
About “deep state” is what it claims to be??
Just my suspicions.🤔😉😉😉
|
|
|
|
Post by Awe on Apr 16, 2020 6:54:04 GMT -5
The first shall be last to know
and the last , will be the first to know.
hmmm, it’s a universal axiom , i need to be patient in
extreme ignorant And arrogant policies??
Hmmmm
🤔🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by Awe on Apr 17, 2020 23:55:02 GMT -5
And try to remember that the more paranoid
you become, the more likely you will
want to be tested for coronavirus?
Then after you are tested, you become
more paranoid , because you don’t have
any obvious symptoms?
hmmmm, please line up for testing! I want
to know if you are hiding something?
😉🤔🤔😉
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 18, 2020 3:25:57 GMT -5
And try to remember that the more paranoid you become, the more likely you will want to be tested for coronavirus? Then after you are tested, you become more paranoid , because you don’t have any obvious symptoms? hmmmm, please line up for testing! I want to know if you are hiding something? 😉🤔🤔😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Awe on Apr 18, 2020 3:47:18 GMT -5
People are dying because they can’t endure
this crazy ignorance.
But some think their lives somehow don’t matter?
Crazy political world , gone amuck
😢
|
|
|
|
Post by Awe on Apr 18, 2020 3:55:09 GMT -5
Wonder if “hiccups “ will be a symptom , if they aren’t
already ?
Either they have no clue or they are desperately
trying to scare the masses around the world, for
intentions only known by the “deep”
IMO
Have a happy day!
🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by Awe on Apr 18, 2020 9:22:25 GMT -5
Man was created to “explore” .
to think , to reason , to live rightly,
are we getting it ?
have we explored all reasons for living rightly
have we discovered all things worthy of being
discovered?
if not, why not?
are we going to be ignorant of the truth,
ignoring the truth, or embrace it wholeheartedly!!
yes, we can
imo
|
|
|
|
Post by Awe on Apr 19, 2020 4:57:28 GMT -5
What is government?
it is a contrived system of control based
on your geographic location
And now we’ve been hoodwinked hook, line, and a very large sinker ..
amen
😔
|
|
|
|
Post by Awe on Apr 19, 2020 8:50:01 GMT -5
and who , pray tell, initiated the first law :
the Ten Commandments?
hmmmm
according to scripture?
according to heresy?
intelligent thoughts, that were the foundation
of our English , ZHebrew , and many other
countries.
Foundational to us humans understanding
and living according to the high
Devine principles.
truth and justice, respectful humility.
🙂
|
|
